ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2024
Uncertainty-aware automatic TNM staging classification for [
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated classification of clinical T staging pulmonary oncology from chest CT reports: a natural language processing framework for real-world data utilization.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Article
- The incremental value of unstructured data via natural language processing in machine learning-based COVID-19 mortality prediction: a comparative study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2025Article
- Open LLM-based actionable incidental finding extraction from [Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
background[
methods2498 reports were annotated by a nuclear medicine physician and split into train, validation, and test datasets. For additional evaluation an external dataset (n = 461 reports) was created, and annotated by two nuclear medicine physicians with agreement reached on all examples. We trained and evaluated eleven publicly available PLMs to determine which is most effective for PET-CT reports, and compared multi-task, single task and traditional machine learning approaches.
resultsWe find that a multi-task approach with GatorTron as PLM achieves the best performance, with an overall accuracy (all four tasks correct) of 84% and a Hamming loss of 0.05 on the internal test dataset, and 79% and 0.07 on the external test dataset. Performance on the individual TNM tasks approached expert performance with macro average F1 scores of 0.91, 0.95 and 0.90 respectively on external data. For uncertainty an F1 of 0.77 is achieved.
conclusionsOur 'TNMu' classifier successfully extracts TNM staging information from internal and external PET-CT reports. We concluded that multi-task approaches result in the best performance, and better computational efficiency over single task PLM approaches. We believe these models can improve PET-CT services by assisting in auditing, creating research cohorts, and developing decision support systems. Our approach to handling uncertainty represents a novel first step but has room for further refinement.
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.