Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40707949›Full record

ArticleBioData mining2025

Can open source large language models be used for tumor documentation in Germany?-An evaluation on urological doctors' notes.

Stefan Lenz, Arsenij Ustjanzew, Marco Jeray, Meike Ressing, Torsten Panholzer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BioData mining, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. [Research progress of large language models in tumor diagnosis: applications in textual reports and medical imaging].Nan fang yi ke da xue xue bao = Journal of Southern Medical University · 2026
    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

5 authors.

Stefan LenzInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany. stefan.lenz@uni-mainz.de.
Arsenij UstjanzewInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Marco JerayPrivacy, Compliance, and Risk Management Office, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Meike RessingInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.
Torsten PanholzerInstitute of Medical Biostatistics, Epidemiology and Informatics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany.

Funding

Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung FKZ 01ZZ2106A
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTumor documentation in Germany is currently a largely manual process. It involves reading the textual patient documentation and filling in forms in dedicated databases to obtain structured data. Advances in information extraction techniques that build on large language models (LLMs) could have the potential for enhancing the efficiency and reliability of this process. Evaluating LLMs in the German medical domain, especially their ability to interpret specialized language, is essential to determine their suitability for the use in clinical documentation. Due to data protection regulations, only locally deployed open source LLMs are generally suitable for this application.

methodsThe evaluation employs eleven different open source LLMs with sizes ranging from 1 to 70 billion model parameters. Three basic tasks were selected as representative examples for the tumor documentation process: identifying tumor diagnoses, assigning ICD-10 codes, and extracting the date of first diagnosis. For evaluating the LLMs on these tasks, a dataset of annotated text snippets based on anonymized doctors' notes from urology was prepared. Different prompting strategies were used to investigate the effect of the number of examples in few-shot prompting and to explore the capabilities of the LLMs in general.

resultsThe models Llama 3.1 8B, Mistral 7B, and Mistral NeMo 12 B performed comparably well in the tasks. Models with less extensive training data or having fewer than 7 billion parameters showed notably lower performance, while larger models did not display performance gains. Examples from a different medical domain than urology could also improve the outcome in few-shot prompting, which demonstrates the ability of LLMs to handle tasks needed for tumor documentation.

conclusionsOpen source LLMs show a strong potential for automating tumor documentation. Models from 7-12 billion parameters could offer an optimal balance between performance and resource efficiency. With tailored fine-tuning and well-designed prompting, these models might become important tools for clinical documentation in the future. The code for the evaluation is available from https://github.com/stefan-m-lenz/UroLlmEval . We also release the data set under https://huggingface.co/datasets/stefan-m-lenz/UroLlmEvalSet providing a valuable resource that addresses the shortage of authentic and easily accessible benchmarks in German-language medical NLP.

Indexed as

German Clinical TextsICD-10 CodingInformation ExtractionLarge Language Models (LLMs)Medical NLPTumor DocumentationUrology

Identifiers

PMID40707949
PMCPMC12291363

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.