An observational study in Acute Conditions, sponsored by Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne. Recruiting at 4 sites in 3 countries. Open to participants aged Up to 1 Day. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-11-03.
Sponsored by Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne · Observational
Healthcare settings in low and middle income countries, clinicians are frequently required to manage a wide range of acute conditions under the constraints of time pressure, limited diagnostic resources, and variable availability of up-to-date clinical guidelines. Large language models (LLMs), which can synthesize and generate medical information in a natural language, have been proposed as potential clinical decision support tools. Most evaluations of LLMs in medicine have relied on standardized benchmark examinations or hypothetical case vignettes, often derived from high-income country contexts. MOOVE (Massive online open validation and evaluation) framework was developed to address the need for rigorous and context-sensitive evaluation of LLMs through a staged approach.
Study is a non-interventional, prospective study designed to test LLMs safely in real clinical settings, evaluate their performance against human care, and explore how feasible their future implementation in healthcare might be.
SilentMOOVE (Silent massive online open validation and evaluation) phase of the MOOVE project, which represents the intermediate step between previous hypothetical testing study and future interventional trial. In silentMOOVE, patients are prospectively recruited during routine clinical care in participating outpatient health facilities. Clinical and demographic data collected during consultations are used to prompt LLMs retrospectively without influencing patient care. The routine diagnosis and care plan of the treating clinicians (human care plan) are also captured. LLM outputs are subsequently evaluated by a panel of independent clinical experts against the human care plan as a comparator. Patient clinical outcomes are collected on 7 and 28 days after enrolment to establish a baseline and to be used in the evaluation of LLMs.
The rationale for this study is to generate robust, prospective evidence on the safety and performance of LLMs in real-world clinical contexts, while minimizing risk to participants by fully separating model evaluation from clinical decision-making.
Study also provides the opportunity to assess the usability and gather early insights on implementation readiness of the LLM prompting interface. For this reason, besides evaluating the performance and safety of various LLMs, this study includes an implementation feasibility component. These activities are needed to better understand the context and any amelioration needed before future implementation in healthcare settings. Learnings from the implementation feasibility research will be shared among countries, especially applicable within a given use case. Implementation feasibility research will be grounded in artificial intelligence in healthcare implementation frameworks and other Implementation science frameworks Primary objectives
Implementation feasibility research objectives
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne is the lead sponsor of 21 studies on the registry; 11 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
The study population consists of patients of any age presenting to participating health facilities for a distinct care-seeking episode related to a clinical condition within the defined use case (e.g. primary care, emergency care).
Both adult and pediatric patients are eligible, reflecting the real-world case mix of the participating facilities.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Non interventional study
Other: Non interventional study
Non interventional study
Performance Scores
Scoring is between -2 to +2 where '-2' means minimum, and '-2' means maximum. Score to be \>0. Higher score means better outcome.
Time frame: Day 0
Safety performance threshold achievement
The mean safety score (minimum is -2 and maximum is +2) is formally compared between each LLM and the human comparator to assess non-inferiority within a UCA (use case appendix) dependent pre-specified margin.
Time frame: 'Day 7' and 'Day 28'
Implementation Feasibility Research
Usability: Quantitative scoring rubric for clinicians; semi-structured interviews with clinicians; evaluation methods will be used
Time frame: week 4 until study completion
Implementation Feasibility Research
Workflow integration feasibility: This will be evaluated using semi structured interviews and questionnaires
Time frame: week 4 until study completion
Implementation Feasibility Research
Acceptability and perceived trust: This will be evaluated with Quantitative scoring rubric for clinicians; semi-structured interviews with clinicians
Time frame: week 4 until study completion
Implementation Feasibility Research
Implementation facilitators and barriers: This will be evaluated using semi-structured interviews and questionnaires
Time frame: week 4 until study completion
Plan to share: Yes — We will share IPD within 12 months of study completion.
Supporting information: Study protocol
Time frame: IPD information will be shared within 12 months of study completion.
Access criteria: Will be confirmed within 12 months of study completion
Started Aug 2026 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Dec 2026, 4 months after the start.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne