Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40164789›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Comprehensive testing of large language models for extraction of structured data in pathology.

Bastian Grothey, Jan Odenkirchen, Adnan Brkic, Birgid Schömig-Markiefka, Alexander Quaas, Reinhard Büttner, Yuri Tolkach

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. The consensus-based CINEX guideline for reporting clinical information extraction studies.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Development and External Validation of a Large Language Model-Based Clinical Decision-Support System for Colonoscopy Surveillance Intervals.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Bastian GrotheyInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. bastian.grothey@uk-koeln.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0883-6481
Jan OdenkirchenMedical Faculty, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Adnan BrkicInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Birgid Schömig-MarkiefkaInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Alexander QuaasInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Reinhard BüttnerInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8806-4786
Yuri TolkachInstitute of Pathology, University Hospital Cologne, Cologne, Germany. yuri.tolkach@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5239-2841

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung (Federal Ministry of Education and Research) Project FED-PATHWilhelm Sander-Stiftung (Wilhelm Sander Foundation) Grand 2022.040.1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPathology departments generate large volumes of unstructured data as free-text diagnostic reports. Converting these reports into structured formats for analytics or artificial intelligence projects requires substantial manual effort by specialized personnel. While recent studies show promise in using advanced language models for structuring pathology data, they primarily rely on proprietary models, raising cost and privacy concerns. Additionally, important aspects such as prompt engineering and model quantization for deployment on consumer-grade hardware remain unaddressed.

methodsWe created a dataset of 579 annotated pathology reports in German and English versions. Six language models (proprietary: GPT-4; open-source: Llama2 13B, Llama2 70B, Llama3 8B, Llama3 70B, and Qwen2.5 7B) were evaluated for their ability to extract eleven key parameters from these reports. Additionally, we investigated model performance across different prompt engineering strategies and model quantization techniques to assess practical deployment scenarios.

resultsHere we show that open-source language models extract structured data from pathology reports with high precision, matching the accuracy of proprietary GPT-4 model. The precision varies significantly across different models and configurations. These variations depend on specific prompt engineering strategies and quantization methods used during model deployment.

conclusionsOpen-source language models demonstrate comparable performance to proprietary solutions in structuring pathology report data. This finding has significant implications for healthcare institutions seeking cost-effective, privacy-preserving data structuring solutions. The variations in model performance across different configurations provide valuable insights for practical deployment in pathology departments. Our publicly available bilingual dataset serves as both a benchmark and a resource for future research.

Identifiers

PMID40164789
PMCPMC11958830

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.