Draft for editorial review
This extends the original AI matching placeholder into a practical product explainer without overclaiming clinical decision-making.
How TrialConnect Matching Works
Draft dated 15 April 2026 by the TrialConnect team
Matching is a shortlist, not a diagnosis
TrialConnect is designed to help people find relevant clinical trials faster. It does not decide whether someone can join a study, and it does not replace advice from a doctor or research team.
The goal is to reduce the amount of searching patients, carers, and clinicians have to do manually. Final eligibility is always confirmed by the trial site.
What the matching system looks at
- Condition and subtype, such as cancer type, inflammatory condition, or rare disease.
- Location and travel preferences, including UK recruiting sites where available.
- Trial status, so closed or non-recruiting studies are not treated as active options.
- Key eligibility signals, such as age range, biomarkers, treatment history, disease stage, and performance status when these are available.
- Practical details, including contact routes and whether a site appears to have usable recruitment information.
Why some matches need more checking
Trial eligibility criteria can be detailed and technical. A study may mention lab results, previous treatments, scan findings, genetic markers, or timing rules that are not easy to capture in a short form.
For that reason, TrialConnect should be viewed as a discovery tool. A result that looks promising may still be unsuitable after screening, and a result that looks uncertain may still be worth discussing with a clinician.
How results should be interpreted
- A high match means the visible criteria appear to line up with the information provided.
- A partial match means there are missing or uncertain details that need review.
- A low match does not always mean impossible; it may mean the available trial record lacks enough information.
- Contact details and recruiting status should be checked before making travel or care decisions.
What we are improving next
The next step is to make matching explanations clearer. Patients should be able to see why a trial appears in their results and which answers affected the match.
We also want clinicians to spot the most important inclusion and exclusion points quickly, so the first conversation is more useful.
Draft note for Joe: keep claims conservative until matching QA and clinical governance review are complete.
Suggested next step
Start with a condition search, then use the match details as a conversation starter with your clinical team.
Search trials