MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416780926 · doi:10.1016/j.esmorw.2025.100487

291P Harnessing AI and clinical guidelines to find metastatic breast cancer patients not tested and treated according to guidelines

2025· article· en· W4416780926 on OpenAlexaff
David B. Everman, Rosa Nguyen, Michelle Meng Huang Mok, Ankit Tanwar, Tao Ge, J. Zhang, Veena Gupta

Bibliographic record

VenueESMO Real World Data and Digital Oncology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMetastatic breast cancerBreast cancerCancerMEDLINEDiseaseMetastatic melanoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Advances in NLP and LLM offer promising approaches for automated data extraction.In China, NLP has been applied in specific database studies, but wider adoption is limited by lack of algorithm transparency and performance consistency.This study assessed a rule-based NLP and a fine-tuned LLM for extracting key variables from Chinese electronic health records. Methods: In this pilot project, we retrospectively sampled clinical data of 480 NSCLC patients in the National Anti-tumor Drug Surveillance System between 2018 and 2023.Two automated approaches were compared with manual review: (1) a well-validated NLP integrating BERT-based named entity recognition and ALBERT-based relation extraction; (2) an exploratory Qwen3-30B-based LLM fine-tuned for few-shot learning.Accuracy and F1-scores were assessed across variables, including demographics, clinical characteristics, treatment history, and mortality.Time efficiency was measured. Results:The NLP and LLM models achieved overall F1-scores of 72.0% and 76.0%, respectively.While both showed comparable accuracy, the NLP performed better on semi-structured variables such as TNM staging (88.0% vs. 82.0%)and ECOG status (79.0% vs. 63.9%).The LLM demonstrated stronger performance on contextdependent variables, with higher F1-scores for start date (LLM 88.00% vs. NLP 72.0%), end date (65.00% vs. 56.0%),and progression in first-line therapy (92.0% vs. 87.0%).With LLM, manual effort reduced from 168 to 40 hours for quality control and optimization.Further NLP optimization was not conducted due to prior training on 100,000 diverse sentences derived from over two million records. Conclusions:The fine-tuned LLM outperformed the rule-based NLP overall, particularly in extracting complex, context-dependent variables.These results underscored the potential of NLP and LLM to improve research efficiency, lower data curation costs, and enable scalable real-world evidence generation in oncology research in China.Further research-specific refinement is essential to meet rigorous accuracy standards and ensure robustness across diverse medical documentation.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.515
Threshold uncertainty score0.759

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.391
GPT teacher head0.580
Teacher spread0.189 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueESMO Real World Data and Digital OncologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207