ArticlePloS one2025
Leveraging natural language processing for efficient information extraction from breast cancer pathology reports: Single-institution study.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Multilingual Evidence-Based Question-Answering for Stroke Discharge Summaries: Study of Cross-Lingual Heterogeneity in Clinical Reports.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Integrating Large Language Models with Deep Learning for Breast Cancer Treatment Decision Support.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Employing Consensus-Based Reasoning with Locally Deployed LLMs for Enabling Structured Data Extraction from Surgical Pathology Reports.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPathology reports provide important information for accurate diagnosis of cancer and optimal treatment decision making. In particular, breast cancer has known to be the most common cancer in women worldwide.
objectiveFor the data extraction of breast cancer pathology reports in a single institute, we assessed the accuracy of methods between regular expression and natural language processing (NLP).
methodsA total of 1,215 breast cancer pathology reports were annotated for NLP model development. As NLP models, we considered three BERT models with specific vocabularies including BERT-basic, BioBERT, and ClinicalBERT. K-fold cross-validation was used to verify the performance of the BERT model. The results between the regular expression and the BERT model were compared using the named entity recognition (NER) techniques.
resultsAmong three BERT models, BioBERT was the most accurate parsing model (average performance = 0.99901) for breast cancer pathology when set to k = 5. BioBERT also had the lowest error rate for all items in the breast cancer pathology report compared to other BERT models (accuracy for all variables ≥ 0.9). Therefore, we finally selected BioBERT as the NLP model. When comparing the results of BioBERT and regular expressions using NER, we identified that BioBERT was more accurate than regular expression method, especially for some items such as intraductal component (BioBERT: 1.0, RegEx: 0.1644), lymph node (BioBERT: 0.9886, RegEx: 0.4792), and lymphovascular invasion (BioBERT: 0.9918, RegEx: 0.3759).
conclusionsOur results showed that the NLP model, BioBERT, had higher accuracy than regular expression, suggesting the importance of BioBERT in the processing of breast cancer pathology reports.
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.