A Question-and-Answer System to Extract Data From Free-Text Oncological Pathology Reports (CancerBERT Network): Development Study (Preprint)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<sec> <title>BACKGROUND</title> Information in pathology reports is critical for cancer care. Natural language processing (NLP) systems used to extract information from pathology reports are often narrow in scope or require extensive tuning. Consequently, there is growing interest in automated deep learning approaches. A powerful new NLP algorithm, bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), was published in late 2018. BERT set new performance standards on tasks as diverse as question answering, named entity recognition, speech recognition, and more. </sec> <sec> <title>OBJECTIVE</title> The aim of this study is to develop a BERT-based system to automatically extract detailed tumor site and histology information from free-text oncological pathology reports. </sec> <sec> <title>METHODS</title> We pursued three specific aims: extract accurate tumor site and histology descriptions from free-text pathology reports, accommodate the diverse terminology used to indicate the same pathology, and provide accurate standardized tumor site and histology codes for use by downstream applications. We first trained a base language model to comprehend the technical language in pathology reports. This involved unsupervised learning on a training corpus of 275,605 electronic pathology reports from 164,531 unique patients that included 121 million words. Next, we trained a question-and-answer (Q&amp;A) model that connects a Q&amp;A layer to the base pathology language model to answer pathology questions. Our Q&amp;A system was designed to search for the answers to two predefined questions in each pathology report: <i>What organ contains the tumor?</i> and <i>What is the kind of tumor or carcinoma?</i> This involved supervised training on 8197 pathology reports, each with ground truth answers to these 2 questions determined by certified tumor registrars. The data set included 214 tumor sites and 193 histologies. The tumor site and histology phrases extracted by the Q&amp;A model were used to predict International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3), site and histology codes. This involved fine-tuning two additional BERT models: one to predict site codes and another to predict histology codes. Our final system includes a network of 3 BERT-based models. We call this CancerBERT network (caBERTnet). We evaluated caBERTnet using a sequestered test data set of 2050 pathology reports with ground truth answers determined by certified tumor registrars. </sec> <sec> <title>RESULTS</title> caBERTnet’s accuracies for predicting group-level site and histology codes were 93.53% (1895/2026) and 97.6% (1993/2042), respectively. The top 5 accuracies for predicting fine-grained ICD-O-3 site and histology codes with 5 or more samples each in the training data set were 92.95% (1794/1930) and 96.01% (1853/1930), respectively. </sec> <sec> <title>CONCLUSIONS</title> We have developed an NLP system that outperforms existing algorithms at predicting ICD-O-3 codes across an extensive range of tumor sites and histologies. Our new system could help reduce treatment delays, increase enrollment in clinical trials of new therapies, and improve patient outcomes. </sec>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Methods About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Bench or experimental | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Other design | medium |
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.036 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".