Developing a Data and Analytics Platform to Enable a Breast Cancer Learning Health System at a Regional Cancer Center
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study documents the creation of automated, longitudinal, and prospective data and analytics platform for breast cancer at a regional cancer center. This platform combines principles of data warehousing with natural language processing (NLP) to provide the integrated, timely, meaningful, high-quality, and actionable data required to establish a learning health system. METHODS: Data from six hospital information systems and one external data source were integrated on a nightly basis by automated extract/transform/load jobs. Free-text clinical documentation was processed using a commercial NLP engine. RESULTS: The platform contains 141 data elements of 7,019 patients with newly diagnosed breast cancer who received care at our regional cancer center from January 1, 2014, to June 3, 2022. Daily updating of the database takes an average of 56 minutes. Evaluation of the tuning of NLP jobs found overall high performance, with an F1 of 1.0 for 19 variables, with a further 16 variables with an F1 of > 0.95. CONCLUSION: This study describes how data warehousing combined with NLP can be used to create a prospective data and analytics platform to enable a learning health system. Although upfront time investment required to create the platform was considerable, now that it has been developed, daily data processing is completed automatically in less than an hour.
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
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".