Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36547809›Full record

ArticleAdvances in therapy2023

Developing Artificial Intelligence Models for Extracting Oncologic Outcomes from Japanese Electronic Health Records.

Kenji Araki, Nobuhiro Matsumoto, Kanae Togo, Naohiro Yonemoto, Emiko Ohki, Linghua Xu, Yoshiyuki Hasegawa, Daisuke Satoh, Ryota Takemoto, Taiga Miyazaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. An overview and a roadmap for artificial intelligence in hematology and oncology.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Review
  8. 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

10 authors.

Kenji ArakiPatient Advocacy Center, University of Miyazaki Hospital, Miyazaki, Japan.
Nobuhiro MatsumotoDivision of Respirology, Rheumatology, Infectious Diseases, and Neurology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5581-5635
Kanae TogoHealth & Value, Pfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan. kanae.togo@pfizer.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3964-4009
Naohiro YonemotoHealth & Value, Pfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3637-2095
Emiko OhkiOncology Medical Affairs, Pfizer Japan Inc, Tokyo, Japan.
Linghua XuHealth & Value, Pfizer Japan Inc., Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0466-5993
Yoshiyuki HasegawaManufacturing IT Innovation Sector, NTT DATA Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2105-3975
Daisuke SatohResearch and Development Headquarters, NTT DATA Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.
Ryota TakemotoManufacturing IT Innovation Sector, NTT DATA Corporation, Tokyo, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5880-5165
Taiga MiyazakiDivision of Respirology, Rheumatology, Infectious Diseases, and Neurology, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Miyazaki, Miyazaki, Japan.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0962-5758

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionA framework that extracts oncological outcomes from large-scale databases using artificial intelligence (AI) is not well established. Thus, we aimed to develop AI models to extract outcomes in patients with lung cancer using unstructured text data from electronic health records of multiple hospitals.

methodsWe constructed AI models (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers [BERT], Naïve Bayes, and Longformer) for tumor evaluation using the University of Miyazaki Hospital (UMH) database. This data included both structured and unstructured data from progress notes, radiology reports, and discharge summaries. The BERT model was applied to the Life Data Initiative (LDI) data set of six hospitals. Study outcomes included the performance of AI models and time to progression of disease (TTP) for each line of treatment based on the treatment response extracted by AI models.

resultsFor the UMH data set, the BERT model exhibited higher precision accuracy compared to the Naïve Bayes or the Longformer models, respectively (precision [0.42 vs. 0.47 or 0.22], recall [0.63 vs. 0.46 or 0.33] and F1 scores [0.50 vs. 0.46 or 0.27]). When this BERT model was applied to LDI data, prediction accuracy remained quite similar. The Kaplan-Meier plots of TTP (months) showed similar trends for the first (median 14.9 [95% confidence interval 11.5, 21.1] and 16.8 [12.6, 21.8]), the second (7.8 [6.7, 10.7] and 7.8 [6.7, 10.7]), and the later lines of treatment for the predicted data by the BERT model and the manually curated data.

conclusionWe developed AI models to extract treatment responses in patients with lung cancer using a large EHR database; however, the model requires further improvement.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceLung NeoplasmsBayes TheoremEast Asian PeopleElectronic Health RecordsHumansArtificial intelligenceBERTElectronic health records databaseLung cancerReal-world dataRetrospective study

Identifiers

PMID36547809
PMCPMC9988800

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.