AI peer review for clinical trial manuscripts

PerfectPaper reviews clinical and translational therapeutics manuscripts with a standing team of specialist agents, and lets you add up to three custom agents for the conventions that team does not cover. This page contains five prebuilt agent briefs for experimental therapeutics: response criteria, early-phase safety reporting, trial registration and endpoint pre-specification, drug synergy claims, and translational dose relevance. Each is a text brief you copy into the agent field.

Early-phase oncology has a dense vocabulary of defined terms — dose-limiting toxicity, confirmed response, recommended phase 2 dose — where the definitions carry the meaning. Most reviewer objections in this literature are about definitions applied loosely rather than about analysis done wrongly.

The five agents

Response criteria discipline — RECIST and iRECIST conflated, unconfirmed responses counted, censoring rules absent, waterfall plots that disagree with the reported response rate.

Early-phase safety and dose reporting — dose-limiting toxicity window undefined, grading version unstated, safety denominators that shift between tables, recommended dose unsupported by the escalation data.

Trial registration and endpoint pre-specification — missing registration identifier, reported primary endpoint differing from the registered one, a secondary endpoint promoted to the headline.

Drug synergy claims — synergy asserted from a bar chart, no reference model named, combination index misapplied.

Translational dose relevance — in vitro concentrations far above achievable exposure, animal-to-human dose conversion without a stated basis, target engagement never shown at the effective dose.

How custom agents work

You can add up to three custom agents to a review. Each takes a name, instructions up to 6,000 characters, a work type, a skill level, and an optional tool selection — web search, scholarly search, code execution, and vision. PerfectPaper supplies the review contract and output format, so the brief describes what to look for.

Choosing among them

For a first-in-human or dose-escalation paper, take early-phase safety and registration. For an efficacy report, take response criteria first, since that is where the definitional slippage lives. Synergy is worth a slot only when the paper claims synergy specifically rather than additivity or combination benefit. Translational dose relevance suits preclinical papers that argue for clinical development, and it is often the objection that decides whether that argument lands.

Give the safety and response agents code execution, since both benefit from recomputing rates and reconciling denominators.

Review my manuscript

Frequently asked questions

How many custom agents can I add to one review?

Three. They run alongside the standing specialist team, which already covers statistics, methodology, causal inference, tables, figures and citation verification.

Do these agents check my trial against its registration?

The registration agent checks internal consistency and reports what a reader cannot verify from the manuscript. Comparing your paper against a registry record requires reading that record, which the agent can do only when given web search.

Which agent suits a phase 1 dose escalation paper?

Early-phase safety and dose reporting, paired with registration. Response criteria matters less when the primary endpoint is toxicity rather than efficacy.

Are these agents specific to oncology?

The response criteria and dose escalation agents are oncology-specific, since they rest on RECIST and on oncology dose-finding conventions. Registration, synergy and translational dose apply across therapeutic areas.