ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2020
Automatic extraction of cancer registry reportable information from free-text pathology reports using multitask convolutional neural networks.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 47 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
47 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Performance of Natural Language Processing for Information Extraction From Electronic Health Records Within Cancer: Systematic Review.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- The role of artificial intelligence in advancing population-based cancer registration.Science bulletin · 2026Review
- Automated Extraction of Cancer Registry Data from Pathology Reports: Comparing LLM-Based and Ontology-Driven NLP Platforms.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Application of a Natural Language Processing Framework for Data Extraction From Pathology Reports Across Multiple Cancer Types.Journal of Korean medical science · 2026Article
- AI assistance in tumor multidisciplinary teams.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in cancer: applications, challenges, and future perspectives.Molecular cancer · 2025Review
- Towards scalable and cross-lingual specialist language models for oncology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Open-Source Hybrid Large Language Model Integrated System for Extraction of Breast Cancer Treatment Pathway From Free-Text Clinical Notes.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Developing and Validating an Automatic Support System for Tumor Coding in Pathology Reports in Spanish.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Autophagy Associated Genes (ARGs) -Based Predictive Model AIDPS for Prostate Cancer.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2025Article
- A survey of NLP methods for oncology in the past decade with a focus on cancer registry applications.Artificial intelligence review · 2025Article
- Synoptic reporting by summarizing cancer pathology reports using large language models.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Computational pathology: A survey review and the way forward.Journal of pathology informatics · 2024Review
- Integrating predictive coding and a user-centric interface for enhanced auditing and quality in cancer registry data.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2024Article
- Classifying Tumor Reportability Status From Unstructured Electronic Pathology Reports Using Language Models in a Population-Based Cancer Registry Setting.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- Development of message passing-based graph convolutional networks for classifying cancer pathology reports.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2024Article
- TCGA-Reports: A machine-readable pathology report resource for benchmarking text-based AI models.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Article
- Path-BigBird: An AI-Driven Transformer Approach to Classification of Cancer Pathology Reports.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2024Article
- StructuralDPPIV: a novel deep learning model based on atom structure for predicting dipeptidyl peptidase-IV inhibitory peptides.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveWe implement 2 different multitask learning (MTL) techniques, hard parameter sharing and cross-stitch, to train a word-level convolutional neural network (CNN) specifically designed for automatic extraction of cancer data from unstructured text in pathology reports. We show the importance of learning related information extraction (IE) tasks leveraging shared representations across the tasks to achieve state-of-the-art performance in classification accuracy and computational efficiency. MATERIALS AND
methodsMultitask CNN (MTCNN) attempts to tackle document information extraction by learning to extract multiple key cancer characteristics simultaneously. We trained our MTCNN to perform 5 information extraction tasks: (1) primary cancer site (65 classes), (2) laterality (4 classes), (3) behavior (3 classes), (4) histological type (63 classes), and (5) histological grade (5 classes). We evaluated the performance on a corpus of 95 231 pathology documents (71 223 unique tumors) obtained from the Louisiana Tumor Registry. We compared the performance of the MTCNN models against single-task CNN models and 2 traditional machine learning approaches, namely support vector machine (SVM) and random forest classifier (RFC).
resultsMTCNNs offered superior performance across all 5 tasks in terms of classification accuracy as compared with the other machine learning models. Based on retrospective evaluation, the hard parameter sharing and cross-stitch MTCNN models correctly classified 59.04% and 57.93% of the pathology reports respectively across all 5 tasks. The baseline models achieved 53.68% (CNN), 46.37% (RFC), and 36.75% (SVM). Based on prospective evaluation, the percentages of correctly classified cases across the 5 tasks were 60.11% (hard parameter sharing), 58.13% (cross-stitch), 51.30% (single-task CNN), 42.07% (RFC), and 35.16% (SVM). Moreover, hard parameter sharing MTCNNs outperformed the other models in computational efficiency by using about the same number of trainable parameters as a single-task CNN.
conclusionsThe hard parameter sharing MTCNN offers superior classification accuracy for automated coding support of pathology documents across a wide range of cancers and multiple information extraction tasks while maintaining similar training and inference time as those of a single task-specific model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.