Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40255242›Full record

ArticleNEJM AI2024

CORAL: Expert-Curated Oncology Reports to Advance Language Model Inference.

Madhumita Sushil, Vanessa E Kennedy, Divneet Mandair, Brenda Y Miao, Travis Zack, Atul J Butte

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NEJM AI, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing 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

34 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. SDoH-GPT: using large language models to extract social determinants of health.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Madhumita SushilBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0001-7884-0526
Vanessa E KennedyHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0002-1912-4076
Divneet MandairHelen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0002-4629-0387
Brenda Y MiaoBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0002-3393-9837
Travis ZackBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0002-1620-6455
Atul J ButteBakar Computational Health Sciences Institute, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco.ORCID 0000-0002-7433-2740

Funding

Translational InformaticsP30CA082103 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI Alan Ashworth · 1999 to 2026
$209.7M
Clinical and Translational Science InstituteUL1TR001872 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISCO · PI COLLARD, HAROLD R, JACOBY, VANESSA · 2016 to 2025
$112.1M
FDA HHS U01 FD005978NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001872NCI NIH HHS P30 CA082103
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBoth medical care and observational studies in oncology require a thorough understanding of a patient's disease progression and treatment history, often elaborately documented within clinical notes. As large language models (LLMs) are being considered for use within medical workflows, it becomes important to evaluate their potential in oncology. However, no current information representation schema fully encapsulates the diversity of oncology information within clinical notes, and no comprehensively annotated oncology notes exist publicly, thereby limiting a thorough evaluation.

methodsWe curated a new fine-grained, expert-labeled dataset of 40 deidentified breast and pancreatic cancer progress notes at the University of California, San Francisco, and assessed the abilities of three recent LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5-turbo, and FLAN-UL2) in

resultsOur team annotated 9028 entities, 9986 modifiers, and 5312 relationships. The GPT-4 model exhibited overall best performance, with an average BLEU score of 0.73, an average ROUGE score of 0.72, an average EM F1 score of 0.51, and an average accuracy of 68% (expert manual evaluation on subset). Notably, GPT-4 was proficient in tumor characteristic and medication extraction and demonstrated superior performance in advanced reasoning tasks of inferring symptoms due to cancer and considerations of future medications. Common errors included partial responses with missing information and hallucinations with note-specific information.

conclusionsBy developing a comprehensive schema and benchmark of oncology-specific information in oncology notes, we uncovered both the strengths and the limitations of LLMs. Our evaluation showed variable zero-shot extraction capability among the GPT-3.5-turbo, GPT-4, and FLAN-UL2 models and highlighted a need for further improvements, particularly in complex medical reasoning, before performing reliable information extraction for clinical research and complex population management and documenting quality patient care. (Funded by the National Institute of Health, Food and Drug Administration and others.).

Identifiers

PMID40255242
PMCPMC12007910

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.