MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406865074 · doi:10.2196/65984

Large Language Model Applications for Health Information Extraction in Oncology: Scoping Review

2025· review· en· W4406865074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Cancer · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintComputer scienceData scienceMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Natural language processing systems for data extraction from unstructured clinical text require expert-driven input for labeled annotations and model training. The natural language processing competency of large language models (LLM) can enable automated data extraction of important patient characteristics from electronic health records, which is useful for accelerating cancer clinical research and informing oncology care. Objective: This scoping review aims to map the current landscape, including definitions, frameworks, and future directions of LLMs applied to data extraction from clinical text in oncology. Methods: We queried Ovid MEDLINE for primary, peer-reviewed research studies published since 2000 on June 2, 2024, using oncology- and LLM-related keywords. This scoping review included studies that evaluated the performance of an LLM applied to data extraction from clinical text in oncology contexts. Study attributes and main outcomes were extracted to outline key trends of research in LLM-based data extraction. Results: The literature search yielded 24 studies for inclusion. The majority of studies assessed original and fine-tuned variants of the BERT LLM (n=18, 75%) followed by the Chat-GPT conversational LLM (n=6, 25%). LLMs for data extraction were commonly applied in pan-cancer clinical settings (n=11, 46%), followed by breast (n=4, 17%), and lung (n=4, 17%) cancer contexts, and were evaluated using multi-institution datasets (n=18, 75%). Comparing the studies published in 2022-2024 versus 2019-2021, both the total number of studies (18 vs 6) and the proportion of studies using prompt engineering increased (5/18, 28% vs 0/6, 0%), while the proportion using fine-tuning decreased (8/18, 44.4% vs 6/6, 100%). Advantages of LLMs included positive data extraction performance and reduced manual workload. Conclusions: LLMs applied to data extraction in oncology can serve as useful automated tools to reduce the administrative burden of reviewing patient health records and increase time for patient-facing care. Recent advances in prompt-engineering and fine-tuning methods, and multimodal data extraction present promising directions for future research. Further studies are needed to evaluate the performance of LLM-enabled data extraction in clinical domains beyond the training dataset and to assess the scope and integration of LLMs into real-world clinical environments.

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.

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.432 · 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

Quick stats

Citations38
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR CancerSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207