ArticleHeliyon2023
Natural language processing in urology: Automated extraction of clinical information from histopathology reports of uro-oncology procedures.
Article in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung cancer research: how natural language processing enhances clinical data extraction.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Estimate renal cell carcinoma recurrence rates using electronic health records.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence Applications for Automated Data Extraction and Secondary Use of Clinical Information in Uro-oncology: A Systematic Review.European urology open science · 2026Review
- Large Language Models in Population Oncology: A Contemporary Review on the Use of Large Language Models to Support Data Collection, Aggregation, and Analysis in Cancer Care and Research.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Review
- Supporting cancer research on real-world data: extracting colorectal cancer status and explicitly written TNM stages from free-text imaging and histopathology reports.BMJ health & care informatics · 2025Article
- Automated Extraction of Imaging and Pathology Data From Diverse Prostate Cancer Electronic Records.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Large Language Model Applications for Health Information Extraction in Oncology: Scoping Review.JMIR cancer · 2025Article
- Improving clinical efficiency using retrieval-augmented generation in urologic oncology: A guideline-enhanced artificial intelligence approach.BJUI compass · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence in prostate cancer: navigating the new frontier of precision uro-oncology.American journal of clinical and experimental urology · 2025Review
- A survey of NLP methods for oncology in the past decade with a focus on cancer registry applications.Artificial intelligence review · 2025Article
- A Narrative Review on the Application of Large Language Models to Support Cancer Care and Research.Yearbook of medical informatics · 2024Review
- Connecting the use of innovative treatments and glucocorticoids with the multidisciplinary evaluation through rule-based natural-language processing: a real-world study on patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and psoriasis.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to automate routine extraction of clinically relevant unstructured information from uro-oncological histopathology reports by applying rule-based and machine learning (ML)/deep learning (DL) methods to develop an oncology focused natural language processing (NLP) algorithm. Methods: Our algorithm employs a combination of a rule-based approach and support vector machines/neural networks (BioBert/Clinical BERT), and is optimised for accuracy. We randomly extracted 5772 uro-oncological histology reports from 2008 to 2018 from electronic health records (EHRs) and split the data into training and validation datasets in an 80:20 ratio. The training dataset was annotated by medical professionals and reviewed by cancer registrars. The validation dataset was annotated by cancer registrars and defined as the gold standard with which the algorithm outcomes were compared. The accuracy of NLP-parsed data was matched against these human annotation results. We defined an accuracy rate of >95% as "acceptable" by professional human extraction, as per our cancer registry definition. Results: There were 11 extraction variables in 268 free-text reports. We achieved an accuracy rate of between 61.2% and 99.0% using our algorithm. Of the 11 data fields, a total of 8 data fields met the acceptable accuracy standard, while another 3 data fields had an accuracy rate between 61.2% and 89.7%. Noticeably, the rule-based approach was shown to be more effective and robust in extracting variables of interest. On the other hand, ML/DL models had poorer predictive performances due to highly imbalanced data distribution and variable writing styles between different reports and data used for domain-specific pre-trained models. Conclusion: We designed an NLP algorithm that can automate clinical information extraction accurately from histopathology reports with an overall average micro accuracy of 93.3%.
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.