ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Using Open-Source Large Language Models to Identify Access to Germline Genetic Testing in Veterans With Breast Cancer From Unstructured Text.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe ability of large language models (LLMs) to identify access to germline genetic testing from unstructured text remains unknown. The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) assessed access in Veterans with breast cancer by implementing and evaluating the performance of open-source, locally deployable LLMs (Llama 3 70B, Llama 3 8B, and Llama 2 70B) in identifying access from clinical/consult notes.
methodsWe identified a cohort of 1,201 Veterans diagnosed with breast cancer between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2022, who received cancer care within the nationwide VA system and had clinical and/or consult notes available. Notes from a subset of 200 randomly selected patients, reviewed by subject-matter experts to identify access to testing, were split into development and testing sets, and various hyperparameters and prompting approaches were applied. We evaluated LLM performance using accuracy, precision, recall, and F1, with expert consensus on the labeled subset serving as ground truth. We compared LLM-identified access distribution in the entire cohort with expert-identified access in the labeled subset using the chi-squared test.
resultsLlama 3 70B achieved an F1 score of 0.912 (95% CI, 0.853 to 0.971), besting Llama 3 8B (F1: 0.811; 95% CI, 0.720 to 0.901) and significantly outperforming Llama 2 70B (F1: 0.644; 95% CI, 0.514 to 0.773; the test set target variable prevalence was 0.72.) We observed no significant difference between the performance of Llama 3 70B and that of the average individual expert reviewer, nor between LLM-identified access distribution across the entire cohort and expert-identified distribution in the labeled subset.
conclusionAn open-source, locally deployable LLM effectively and efficiently identified germline genetic testing access from clinical notes. LLMs may enhance care quality and efficiency, while safeguarding sensitive data.
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.