MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403064636 · doi:10.1186/s12911-024-02677-y

Validation of large language models for detecting pathologic complete response in breast cancer using population-based pathology reports

2024· article· en· W4403064636 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ken Cheligeer, Guosong Wu, Alison Laws, May Lynn Quan, Amin Li, Anne-Marie Brisson, Jason Xie, Yuan Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicAI in cancer detection
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth informaticsBreast cancerMedicinePathologyPopulationCancerComputer scienceNatural language processingInternal medicinePublic health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: The primary goal of this study is to evaluate the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) in understanding and processing complex medical documentation. We chose to focus on the identification of pathologic complete response (pCR) in narrative pathology reports. This approach aims to contribute to the advancement of comprehensive reporting, health research, and public health surveillance, thereby enhancing patient care and breast cancer management strategies. METHODS: The study utilized two analytical pipelines, developed with open-source LLMs within the healthcare system's computing environment. First, we extracted embeddings from pathology reports using 15 different transformer-based models and then employed logistic regression on these embeddings to classify the presence or absence of pCR. Secondly, we fine-tuned the Generative Pre-trained Transformer-2 (GPT-2) model by attaching a simple feed-forward neural network (FFNN) layer to improve the detection performance of pCR from pathology reports. RESULTS: In a cohort of 351 female breast cancer patients who underwent neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and subsequent surgery between 2010 and 2017 in Calgary, the optimized method displayed a sensitivity of 95.3% (95%CI: 84.0-100.0%), a positive predictive value of 90.9% (95%CI: 76.5-100.0%), and an F1 score of 93.0% (95%CI: 83.7-100.0%). The results, achieved through diverse LLM integration, surpassed traditional machine learning models, underscoring the potential of LLMs in clinical pathology information extraction. CONCLUSIONS: The study successfully demonstrates the efficacy of LLMs in interpreting and processing digital pathology data, particularly for determining pCR in breast cancer patients post-NAC. The superior performance of LLM-based pipelines over traditional models highlights their significant potential in extracting and analyzing key clinical data from narrative reports. While promising, these findings highlight the need for future external validation to confirm the reliability and broader applicability of these methods.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.351

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations18
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Medical Informatics and Decision MakingSame topicAI in cancer detectionFrench-language works237,207