ArticlebioRxiv : the preprint server for biology2024
Leveraging GPT-4 for Identifying Cancer Phenotypes in Electronic Health Records: A Performance Comparison between GPT-4, GPT-3.5-turbo, Flan-T5 and spaCy's Rule-based & Machine Learning-based methods.
Article in bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Accurately identifying clinical phenotypes from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) provides additional insights into patients' health, especially when such information is unavailable in structured data. This study evaluates the application of OpenAI's Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT)-4 model to identify clinical phenotypes from EHR text in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients. The goal was to identify disease stages, treatments and progression utilizing GPT-4, and compare its performance against GPT-3.5-turbo, Flan-T5-xl, Flan-T5-xxl, and two rule-based and machine learning-based methods, namely, scispaCy and medspaCy. Materials and Methods: Phenotypes such as initial cancer stage, initial treatment, evidence of cancer recurrence, and affected organs during recurrence were identified from 13,646 records for 63 NSCLC patients from Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri. The performance of the GPT-4 model is evaluated against GPT-3.5-turbo, Flan-T5-xxl, Flan-T5-xl, medspaCy and scispaCy by comparing precision, recall, and micro-F1 scores. Results: GPT-4 achieved higher F1 score, precision, and recall compared to Flan-T5-xl, Flan-T5-xxl, medspaCy and scispaCy's models. GPT-3.5-turbo performed similarly to that of GPT-4. GPT and Flan-T5 models were not constrained by explicit rule requirements for contextual pattern recognition. SpaCy models relied on predefined patterns, leading to their suboptimal performance. Discussion and Conclusion: GPT-4 improves clinical phenotype identification due to its robust pre-training and remarkable pattern recognition capability on the embedded tokens. It demonstrates data-driven effectiveness even with limited context in the input. While rule-based models remain useful for some tasks, GPT models offer improved contextual understanding of the text, and robust clinical phenotype extraction.
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.