Abstract B008: Fine-tuned large language model accurately estimates progression-free survival from radiology reports in immune checkpoint inhibitor–treated cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: The development of predictive models for cancer treatment outcome prediction depends on datasets with accurately curated clinical outcomes, such as progression-free survival (PFS). However, current approaches to determining real-world PFS require extensive manual review of imaging reports and clinical documentation—a time- and labor-intensive process prone to variability. In this study, we evaluated whether a fine-tuned LLM could accurately estimate PFS using only longitudinal radiology reports from patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs). Methods: A previously annotated dataset of 972 patients with 7 different advanced solid tumor cancer types (non-small cell lung, melanoma, renal cell, head and neck squamous cell, gastroesophageal, bladder, and breast) treated with immune checkpoint blockade at Stanford University were included in this study. A Gemini Flash (version 1.5) model instance was fine-tuned for PFS prediction within a secure Google Cloud Platform environment. Patients were used for model fine-tuning or validation with a 70:30 tuning/validation split stratified by tumor type. The model was fine-tuned with all available advanced modality imaging reports (eg, CT, PET-CT, and MRI) from the date of treatment initiation up to the first report describing disease progression for each patient in tuning dataset. To evaluate the model in the validation dataset, each available report following treatment initiation was presented to the model in sequence until progression was determined to have occurred or the patient was censored. Results: There was no significant difference between the actual PFS and the PFS predictions from the fine-tuned model in the validation dataset (median PFS by Kaplan-Meier analysis 8.07 months vs. 7.28 months, p=0.136 by log-rank test). The concordance index (C-index) between the fine-tuned model predictions and actual PFS was 0.756. Zero-shot deployment of the same Gemini model resulted in a significant difference in actual and predicted PFS (median PFS 8.07 months vs. 2.72 months p < 0.0001) and C-index of 0.712. Conclusions: A fine-tuned large language model can accurately identify disease progression in cancer imaging reports and determine progression-free survival in response to treatment with immune checkpoint blockade. Attempting this task without fine-tuning results in similar estimations of relative progression risk within the dataset, but systemic underestimation of absolute progression-free survival times. Supervised fine-tuning is valuable for performance optimization on complex cancer outcome curation tasks by AI models. Citation Format: Feyisope Eweje, Riya Dulepet, Yijiang Chen, Ruijiang Li. Fine-tuned large language model accurately estimates progression-free survival from radiology reports in immune checkpoint inhibitor–treated cancers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Special Conference in Cancer Research: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning; 2025 Jul 10-12; Montreal, QC, Canada. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Clin Cancer Res 2025;31(13_Suppl):Abstract nr B008.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".