MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413190184 · doi:10.2196/70602

Identification of Syndrome Types in Patients With Pancreatic Cancer From Free Text in Electronic Medical Records: Model Development and Validation

2025· article· en· W4413190184 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
He Ba, H.S. Du, Chien‐shan Cheng, Zhen Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPreprintIdentification (biology)Pancreatic cancerMedicineCancerComputer scienceInternal medicineWorld Wide WebBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Syndrome differentiation is crucial in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) diagnosis and treatment, but it heavily relies on expert experience, limiting systematic standardization. Objective This study developed and validated a BERT (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers)–based model, the traditional Chinese medicine pancreatic cancer syndrome differentiation bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (TCMPCSD-BERT), using in-house pancreatic cancer medical records, to digitalize expert knowledge and support standardized syndrome differentiation in TCM. Methods A retrospective dataset of pancreatic cancer cases (2011-2024) from Fudan University Shanghai Cancer Center was annotated into 4 TCM syndrome types by 2 experts (Cohen κ=0.913). The proposed TCMPCSD-BERT model was compared with conventional models (long short-term memory and text convolutional neural network) embedded in TCM diagnostic tools and with large language models (LLMs; ChatGPT-4o, Kimi, Ernie Bot 4.0 Turbo, and Zhipu Qingyan) under a prompt engineering framework. Performance evaluation on in-house data was supplemented with attention visualizations and integrated gradients analyses for interpretability. The McNemar test assessed classification accuracy differences, while bootstrap 95% CIs quantified statistical uncertainty and stability. The Welch t test (2-tailed) was used to evaluate mean differences between TCMPCSD-BERT and the comparator models. Results Among 6830 records, case counts were damp-heat syndrome (n=1694), spleen-deficiency syndrome (n=1185), damp-heat with spleen-deficiency syndrome (n=1178), and others (n=2773). On the test set, McNemar test showed significantly higher accuracy for TCMPCSD-BERT than the 3 baseline models and generally better performance than LLMs. In all comparisons, TCMPCSD-BERT achieved higher mean macroprecision, macrorecall, macro–F1-score, and accuracy, with nonoverlapping 95% bootstrap CIs and significant Welch t test results (P<.01). The model achieved a macroprecision of 0.935 (95% CI 0.918-0.951), macrorecall of 0.921 (95% CI 0.900-0.942), macro–F1-score of 0.927 (95% CI 0.908-0.945), and accuracy of 0.919 (95% CI 0.899-0.939). Attention visualizations suggested the model could capture less common TCM term associations, while integrated gradients highlighted high-attribution diagnostic features (eg, “gray-white stool” 0.933 in damp-heat syndrome; “indigestion” 1.204 in spleen-deficiency syndrome). Misclassification analyses indicated challenges in handling overlapping or atypical symptom presentations. Compared with LLMs, web-based platforms, and diagnostic instruments, TCMPCSD-BERT appeared to provide relatively higher accuracy, interpretability, and efficiency in processing long unstructured texts for syndrome differentiation. Conclusions The TCMPCSD-BERT model shows potential for automated syndrome differentiation from unstructured clinical texts and broader application in TCM. Based on this study, it appears to improve operability over 4-diagnostic instruments and web-based platforms, and offers greater stability and accuracy than LLMs in specific tasks. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, given the subjectivity of syndrome definitions, data imbalance, and reliance on preprocessed, expert-annotated data. Further studies involving larger and more diverse populations are needed to validate its generalizability and support its broader application in real-world settings.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.252

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicTraditional Chinese Medicine StudiesFrench-language works237,207