Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34694896›Full record

ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2021

Automated Extraction of Tumor Staging and Diagnosis Information From Surgical Pathology Reports.

Sajjad Abedian, Evan T Sholle, Prakash M Adekkanattu, Marika M Cusick, Stephanie E Weiner, Jonathan E Shoag, Jim C Hu, Thomas R Campion

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sajjad AbedianInformation Technologies and Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-0411-5185
Evan T SholleInformation Technologies and Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-9518-4399
Prakash M AdekkanattuInformation Technologies and Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.
Marika M CusickInformation Technologies and Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-1750-5246
Stephanie E WeinerInformation Technologies and Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-8140
Jonathan E ShoagDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0002-3119-9986
Jim C HuDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.
Thomas R CampionInformation Technologies and Services Department, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, NY.ORCID 0000-0001-7624-769X
Cornell University · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001873 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI REILLY, MUREDACH P · 2016 to 2025
$99.0M
Clinical and Translational Science CenterUL1TR000457 · NCATS · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI IMPERATO-MCGINLEY, JULIANNE L · 2012 to 2016
$46.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000457NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001873
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTypically stored as unstructured notes, surgical pathology reports contain data elements valuable to cancer research that require labor-intensive manual extraction. Although studies have described natural language processing (NLP) of surgical pathology reports to automate information extraction, efforts have focused on specific cancer subtypes rather than across multiple oncologic domains. To address this gap, we developed and evaluated an NLP method to extract tumor staging and diagnosis information across multiple cancer subtypes.

methodsThe NLP pipeline was implemented on an open-source framework called Leo. We used a total of 555,681 surgical pathology reports of 329,076 patients to develop the pipeline and evaluated our approach on subsets of reports from patients with breast, prostate, colorectal, and randomly selected cancer subtypes.

resultsAveraged across all four cancer subtypes, the NLP pipeline achieved an accuracy of 1.00 for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, 0.89 for T staging, 0.90 for N staging, and 0.97 for M staging. It achieved an F1 score of 1.00 for International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision codes, 0.88 for T staging, 0.90 for N staging, and 0.24 for M staging.

conclusionThe NLP pipeline was developed to extract tumor staging and diagnosis information across multiple cancer subtypes to support the research enterprise in our institution. Although it was not possible to demonstrate generalizability of our NLP pipeline to other institutions, other institutions may find value in adopting a similar NLP approach-and reusing code available at GitHub-to support the oncology research enterprise with elements extracted from surgical pathology reports.

Indexed as

Pathology, SurgicalHumansInformation Storage and RetrievalMaleNatural Language ProcessingNeoplasm StagingResearch Report

Identifiers

PMID34694896
PMCPMC8812635
OpenAlexW3209863938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.