Inferensys

Glossary

Criteria Decomposition

The process of breaking down a complex, multi-part clinical trial eligibility criterion into its atomic, independently evaluable logical components.
Developer demonstrating multi-agent tool use, agent tool selection interface on laptop, casual tech demo moment.
CLINICAL TRIAL ELIGIBILITY

What is Criteria Decomposition?

Criteria decomposition is the foundational NLP process that transforms a single, complex clinical trial eligibility sentence into a set of discrete, machine-evaluable logical atoms.

Criteria decomposition is the computational linguistics process of parsing a complex, multi-part clinical trial eligibility statement into its atomic, independently evaluable logical components. It breaks a single narrative sentence—such as "patients with histologically confirmed, non-resectable stage III or IV melanoma who have progressed on prior anti-PD-1 therapy"—into discrete inclusion and exclusion facts that a machine can validate against a patient's structured data.

This process relies on syntactic dependency parsing and medical ontology alignment to resolve conjunctions, disjunctions, and temporal modifiers. The output is a structured set of computable phenotype expressions, where each atom represents a single clinical concept (e.g., a specific diagnosis code, a lab value threshold, or a medication class) that can be independently queried against an EHR or clinical data repository.

ATOMIC CRITERIA DESIGN

Key Characteristics of Effective Decomposition

Effective criteria decomposition transforms a single, complex narrative sentence into a set of discrete, machine-evaluable logical units. The following characteristics define a robust decomposition strategy.

01

Atomicity

Each decomposed unit must represent a single, indivisible clinical fact that can be evaluated as a boolean true/false against a patient record. A criterion like 'Patient must have stage III or IV non-small cell lung cancer' should be split into disease type (NSCLC) and staging (III/IV) as separate evaluable components. This prevents partial matches from being incorrectly classified and allows for precise screen failure analysis when a patient fails only one atomic sub-criterion.

02

Logical Connectivity

The explicit boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT) and temporal relationships (BEFORE, AFTER, WITHIN) connecting atomic criteria must be preserved and structured into a formal logic tree. For example, 'Prior therapy with cisplatin or carboplatin, unless contraindicated' decomposes into:

  • Prior therapy with cisplatin OR prior therapy with carboplatin
  • UNLESS contraindication to platinum-based therapy exists This preserves the original intent while making the logic executable by a phenotype execution engine.
03

Ontological Grounding

Every clinical term in a decomposed criterion must be mapped to a standardized concept identifier from a formal ontology like SNOMED CT, RxNorm, or LOINC. The phrase 'heart attack within 6 months' becomes:

  • Concept: 22298006 | Myocardial infarction (disorder) |
  • Temporal constraint: Occurrence < 6 months before enrollment This grounding enables criteria-to-query translation across heterogeneous EHR systems that may use different local terminologies for the same condition.
04

Temporal Anchoring

Decomposed criteria must explicitly capture all time-window constraints relative to a defined index date (typically enrollment or randomization). A requirement like 'stable corticosteroid dose for 2 weeks prior to enrollment' decomposes into:

  • Medication: Corticosteroid (RxNorm class)
  • Status: Active prescription
  • Temporal constraint: Dose unchanged for >= 14 days BEFORE index date This anchoring is critical for temporal reasoning for eligibility engines that reconstruct patient timelines from longitudinal records.
05

Value Normalization

Quantitative thresholds must be decomposed into a standard unit and a comparator. 'Serum creatinine < 1.5 mg/dL' becomes:

  • Lab test: 2160-0 | Creatinine [Mass/volume] in Serum or Plasma | (LOINC)
  • Value: 1.5
  • Unit: mg/dL
  • Comparator: < This normalization allows the eligibility rule engine to convert and compare values regardless of whether the source EHR stores results in mg/dL or µmol/L.
06

Negation & Certainty Preservation

The decomposition must preserve the distinction between affirmed, negated, and uncertain clinical statements from the original protocol text. 'No active autoimmune disease requiring systemic treatment' decomposes into:

  • Condition: Autoimmune disease (SNOMED CT)
  • Status: NOT present OR inactive
  • Qualifier: If present, NOT requiring systemic therapy This prevents negation and uncertainty detection errors where a patient with a resolved or controlled condition is incorrectly excluded from a trial.
CRITERIA DECOMPOSITION

Frequently Asked Questions

Explore the fundamental concepts behind breaking down complex clinical trial eligibility requirements into machine-executable logical components for automated patient screening.

Criteria decomposition is the computational process of breaking down a complex, multi-part clinical trial eligibility criterion into its atomic, independently evaluable logical components. A single free-text sentence like "Patient must have histologically confirmed non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) with EGFR exon 19 deletion or L858R mutation and have progressed on at least one prior platinum-based chemotherapy" contains multiple discrete conditions. Decomposition parses this into separate evaluable units: (1) diagnosis of NSCLC, (2) presence of EGFR exon 19 deletion OR L858R mutation, (3) prior treatment with platinum-based chemotherapy, and (4) disease progression on that therapy. Each atomic unit can then be independently validated against structured patient data, enabling precise automated eligibility determination rather than treating the entire criterion as a single opaque boolean check.

Prasad Kumkar

About the author

Prasad Kumkar

CEO & MD, Inference Systems

Prasad Kumkar is the CEO & MD of Inference Systems and writes about AI systems architecture, LLM infrastructure, model serving, evaluation, and production deployment. Over 5+ years, he has worked across computer vision models, L5 autonomous vehicle systems, and LLM research, with a focus on taking complex AI ideas into real-world engineering systems.

His work and writing cover AI systems, large language models, AI agents, multimodal systems, autonomous systems, inference optimization, RAG, evaluation, and production AI engineering.