Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39493413›Full record

ArticleInformatics in medicine unlocked2024

SEETrials: Leveraging large language models for safety and efficacy extraction in oncology clinical trials.

Kyeryoung Lee, Hunki Paek, Liang-Chin Huang, C Beau Hilton, Surabhi Datta, Josh Higashi, Nneka Ofoegbu, Jingqi Wang, Samuel M Rubinstein, Andrew J Cowan and 4 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Informatics in medicine unlocked, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Large Language Models in Lung Cancer: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Kyeryoung LeeIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
Hunki PaekIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
Liang-Chin HuangIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
C Beau HiltonDivision of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA.
Surabhi DattaIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
Josh HigashiIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
Nneka OfoegbuIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
Jingqi WangIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.
Samuel M RubinsteinDivision of Hematology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
Andrew J CowanDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Mary KwokDivision of Hematology and Oncology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jeremy L WarnerLifespan Cancer Institute, Rhode Island Hospital, Providence, RI, USA.
Hua XuBiomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Xiaoyan WangIMO Health, Rosemont, IL, USA.

Funding

Enhancing the HemOnc Knowledgebase of Chemotherapy Drugs and RegimensU24CA265879 · NCI · RHODE ISLAND HOSPITAL · PI Jeremy L Warner · 2022 to 2026
$3.4M
NCI NIH HHS U24 CA265879
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Initial insights into oncology clinical trial outcomes are often gleaned manually from conference abstracts. We aimed to develop an automated system to extract safety and efficacy information from study abstracts with high precision and fine granularity, transforming them into computable data for timely clinical decision-making. Methods: We collected clinical trial abstracts from key conferences and PubMed (2012-2023). The SEETrials system was developed with three modules: preprocessing, prompt engineering with knowledge ingestion, and postprocessing. We evaluated the system's performance qualitatively and quantitatively and assessed its generalizability across different cancer types- multiple myeloma (MM), breast, lung, lymphoma, and leukemia. Furthermore, the efficacy and safety of innovative therapies, including CAR-T, bispecific antibodies, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADC), in MM were analyzed across a large scale of clinical trial studies. Results: SEETrials achieved high precision (0.964), recall (sensitivity) (0.988), and F1 score (0.974) across 70 data elements present in the MM trial studies Generalizability tests on four additional cancers yielded precision, recall, and F1 scores within the 0.979-0.992 range. Variation in the distribution of safety and efficacy-related entities was observed across diverse therapies, with certain adverse events more common in specific treatments. Comparative performance analysis using overall response rate (ORR) and complete response (CR) highlighted differences among therapies: CAR-T (ORR: 88 %, 95 % CI: 84-92 %; CR: 95 %, 95 % CI: 53-66 %), bispecific antibodies (ORR: 64 %, 95 % CI: 55-73 %; CR: 27 %, 95 % CI: 16-37 %), and ADC (ORR: 51 %, 95 % CI: 37-65 %; CR: 26 %, 95 % CI: 1-51 %). Notable study heterogeneity was identified (>75 % Conclusion: SEETrials demonstrated highly accurate data extraction and versatility across different therapeutics and various cancer domains. Its automated processing of large datasets facilitates nuanced data comparisons, promoting the swift and effective dissemination of clinical insights.

Indexed as

Automated safety and efficacy extractionConference abstractsGPT-4Large language modelsLarge scale analysisOncology clinical trial

Identifiers

PMID39493413
PMCPMC11530223

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.