MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415473192 · doi:10.2196/78332

Enabling Just-in-Time Clinical Oncology Analysis With Large Language Models: Feasibility and Validation Study Using Unstructured Synthetic Data

2025· article· en· W4415473192 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Peter May, Julian Greß, Christoph Seidel, Sebastian Sommer, Markus K. Schuler, Sina Nokodian, Florian Schröder, Johannes Jung

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProof of conceptClinical OncologyUnstructured dataSynthetic dataSoftwarePatient dataData format

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Traditional cancer registries, limited by labor-intensive manual data abstraction and rigid, predefined schemas, often hinder timely and comprehensive oncology research. While large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in automating data extraction, their potential to perform direct, just-in-time (JIT) analysis on unstructured clinical narratives-potentially bypassing intermediate structured databases for many analytical tasks-remains largely unexplored. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate whether a state-of-the-art LLM (Gemini 2.5 Pro) can enable a JIT clinical oncology analysis paradigm by assessing its ability to (1) perform high-fidelity multiparameter data extraction, (2) answer complex clinical queries directly from raw text, (3) automate multistep survival analyses including executable code generation, and (4) generate novel, clinically plausible hypotheses from free-text documentation. Methods: A synthetic dataset of 240 unstructured clinical letters from patients with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), embedding 14 predefined variables, was used. Gemini 2.5 Pro was evaluated on four core JIT capabilities. Performance was measured by using the following metrics: extraction accuracy (compared to human extraction of n=40 letters and across the full n=240 dataset); numerical deviation for direct question answering (n=40 to 240 letters, 5 questions); log-rank P value and Harrell concordance index for LLM-generated versus ground-truth Kaplan-Meier survival analyses (n=160 letters, overall survival and progression-free survival); and correct justification, novelty, and a qualitative evaluation of LLM-generated hypotheses (n=80 and n=160 letters). Results: For multiparameter extraction from 40 letters, the LLM achieved >99% average accuracy, comparable to human extraction, but in significantly less time (LLM: 3.7 min vs human: 133.8 min). Across the full 240-letter dataset, LLM multiparameter extraction maintained >98% accuracy for most variables. The LLM answered multiconditional clinical queries directly from raw text with a relative deviation rarely exceeding 1.5%, even with up to 240 letters. Crucially, it autonomously performed end-to-end survival analysis, generating text-to-R-code that produced Kaplan-Meier curves statistically indistinguishable from ground truth. Consistent performance was demonstrated on a small validation cohort of 80 synthetic acute myeloid leukemia reports. Stress testing on data with simulated imperfections revealed a key role of a human-in-the-loop to resolve AI-flagged ambiguities. Furthermore, the LLM generated several correctly justified, biologically plausible, and potentially novel hypotheses from datasets up to 80 letters. Conclusions: This feasibility study demonstrated that a frontier LLM (Gemini 2.5 Pro) can successfully perform high-fidelity data extraction, multiconditional querying, and automated survival analysis directly from unstructured text. These results provide a foundational proof of concept for the JIT clinical analysis approach. However, these findings are confined to synthetic patients, and rigorous validation on real-world clinical data is an essential next step before clinical implementation can be considered.

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)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score0.437

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.422
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207