MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Abstract B008: Fine-tuned large language model accurately estimates progression-free survival from radiology reports in immune checkpoint inhibitor–treated cancers

2025· article· en· W4412163675 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Feyisope Eweje, Riya Dulepet, Yijiang Chen, Ruijiang Li

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmune checkpointCancerOncologyInternal medicineRadiologyCancer researchImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.107
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.419 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Cancer ResearchSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207