Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35319481›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022

A Question-and-Answer System to Extract Data From Free-Text Oncological Pathology Reports (CancerBERT Network): Development Study.

Joseph Ross Mitchell, Phillip Szepietowski, Rachel Howard, Phillip Reisman, Jennie D Jones, Patricia Lewis, Brooke L Fridley, Dana E Rollison

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. AI assistance in tumor multidisciplinary teams.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joseph Ross MitchellDepartment of Machine Learning, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-2340-4708
Phillip SzepietowskiDepartment of Health Data Services, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5525-6132
Rachel HowardDepartment of Health Data Services, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-7934-5081
Phillip ReismanDepartment of Health Data Services, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2591-6544
Jennie D JonesDepartment of Health Data Services, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3102-9469
Patricia LewisDepartment of Health Data Services, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3188-370X
Brooke L FridleyDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7739-7956
Dana E RollisonDepartment of Health Data Services, H Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3171-8045
Moffitt Cancer Center · USAlberta Health Services · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInformation in pathology reports is critical for cancer care. Natural language processing (NLP) systems used to extract information from pathology reports are often narrow in scope or require extensive tuning. Consequently, there is growing interest in automated deep learning approaches. A powerful new NLP algorithm, bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERT), was published in late 2018. BERT set new performance standards on tasks as diverse as question answering, named entity recognition, speech recognition, and more.

objectiveThe aim of this study is to develop a BERT-based system to automatically extract detailed tumor site and histology information from free-text oncological pathology reports.

methodsWe pursued three specific aims: extract accurate tumor site and histology descriptions from free-text pathology reports, accommodate the diverse terminology used to indicate the same pathology, and provide accurate standardized tumor site and histology codes for use by downstream applications. We first trained a base language model to comprehend the technical language in pathology reports. This involved unsupervised learning on a training corpus of 275,605 electronic pathology reports from 164,531 unique patients that included 121 million words. Next, we trained a question-and-answer (Q&A) model that connects a Q&A layer to the base pathology language model to answer pathology questions. Our Q&A system was designed to search for the answers to two predefined questions in each pathology report: What organ contains the tumor? and What is the kind of tumor or carcinoma? This involved supervised training on 8197 pathology reports, each with ground truth answers to these 2 questions determined by certified tumor registrars. The data set included 214 tumor sites and 193 histologies. The tumor site and histology phrases extracted by the Q&A model were used to predict International Classification of Diseases for Oncology, Third Edition (ICD-O-3), site and histology codes. This involved fine-tuning two additional BERT models: one to predict site codes and another to predict histology codes. Our final system includes a network of 3 BERT-based models. We call this CancerBERT network (caBERTnet). We evaluated caBERTnet using a sequestered test data set of 2050 pathology reports with ground truth answers determined by certified tumor registrars.

resultscaBERTnet's accuracies for predicting group-level site and histology codes were 93.53% (1895/2026) and 97.6% (1993/2042), respectively. The top 5 accuracies for predicting fine-grained ICD-O-3 site and histology codes with 5 or more samples each in the training data set were 92.95% (1794/1930) and 96.01% (1853/1930), respectively.

conclusionsWe have developed an NLP system that outperforms existing algorithms at predicting ICD-O-3 codes across an extensive range of tumor sites and histologies. Our new system could help reduce treatment delays, increase enrollment in clinical trials of new therapies, and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingNeoplasmsAlgorithmsHumansLanguageMedical OncologyBERTcancerdeep learningICD-O-3natural language processingNLPpathologytransformer

Identifiers

PMID35319481
PMCPMC8987958
OpenAlexW3211439143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.