Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37793630›Full record

ArticleRadiation oncology journal2023

Developing prompts from large language model for extracting clinical information from pathology and ultrasound reports in breast cancer.

Hyeon Seok Choi, Jun Yeong Song, Kyung Hwan Shin, Ji Hyun Chang, Bum-Sup Jang

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Radiation oncology journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 82 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
82citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
4.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

82 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 123 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Utilizing large language models in breast cancer management: systematic review.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2024
    Pooled it
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

22 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Hyeon Seok ChoiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Jun Yeong SongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Kyung Hwan ShinDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Ji Hyun ChangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Bum-Sup JangDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Seoul National University Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.
Seoul National University Hospital · KRSeoul National University · KR

Funding

Ministry of Health and Welfare HA22C0044Ministry of Science and Information and Communication TechnologyNational Cancer CenterNational Research Foundation of Korea 2022R1F1A106345712
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeWe aimed to evaluate the time and cost of developing prompts using large language model (LLM), tailored to extract clinical factors in breast cancer patients and their accuracy. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe collected data from reports of surgical pathology and ultrasound from breast cancer patients who underwent radiotherapy from 2020 to 2022. We extracted the information using the Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) for Sheets and Docs extension plugin and termed this the "LLM" method. The time and cost of developing the prompts with LLM methods were assessed and compared with those spent on collecting information with "full manual" and "LLM-assisted manual" methods. To assess accuracy, 340 patients were randomly selected, and the extracted information by LLM method were compared with those collected by "full manual" method.

resultsData from 2,931 patients were collected. We developed 12 prompts for Extract function and 12 for Format function to extract and standardize the information. The overall accuracy was 87.7%. For lymphovascular invasion, it was 98.2%. Developing and processing the prompts took 3.5 hours and 15 minutes, respectively. Utilizing the ChatGPT application programming interface cost US $65.8 and when factoring in the estimated wage, the total cost was US $95.4. In an estimated comparison, "LLM-assisted manual" and "LLM" methods were time- and cost-efficient compared to the "full manual" method.

conclusionDeveloping and facilitating prompts for LLM to derive clinical factors was efficient to extract crucial information from huge medical records. This study demonstrated the potential of the application of natural language processing using LLM model in breast cancer patients. Prompts from the current study can be re-used for other research to collect clinical information.

Indexed as

Ai artificial intelligenceAutomatic data processingBreast cancerClinical reportsNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID37793630
PMCPMC10556835
OpenAlexW4386932783

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.