Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40939201›Full record

SynthesisJMIR medical informatics2025

Performance of Natural Language Processing for Information Extraction From Electronic Health Records Within Cancer: Systematic Review.

Simon Dahl, Martin Bøgsted, Tomer Sagi, Charles Vesteghem

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. [A multimodal disease-specific cohort for melanoma research: Construction, governance, and preliminary report].Zhong nan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University. Medical sciences · 2025
    Article
  7. 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

4 authors.

Simon DahlCenter for Clinical Data Science, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Selma Lagerløfs Vej 249, Gistrup, 9260, Denmark, +45 99407244.ORCID 0009-0000-7920-4978
Martin BøgstedCenter for Clinical Data Science, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Selma Lagerløfs Vej 249, Gistrup, 9260, Denmark, +45 99407244.ORCID 0000-0001-9192-1814
Tomer SagiDepartment of Computer Science, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-8916-0128
Charles VesteghemCenter for Clinical Data Science, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aalborg University, Selma Lagerløfs Vej 249, Gistrup, 9260, Denmark, +45 99407244.ORCID 0000-0003-2301-9081

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Over the last decade, natural language processing (NLP) has provided various solutions for information extraction (IE) from textual clinical data. In recent years, the use of NLP in cancer research has gained considerable attention, with numerous studies exploring the effectiveness of various NLP techniques for identifying and extracting cancer-related entities from clinical text data. Objective: We aimed to summarize the performance differences between various NLP models for IE within the context of cancer to provide an overview of the relative performance of existing models. Methods: This systematic literature review was conducted using 3 databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) to search for articles extracting cancer-related entities from clinical texts. In total, 33 articles were eligible for inclusion. We extracted NLP models and their performance by F1-scores. Each model was categorized into the following categories: rule-based, traditional machine learning, conditional random field-based, neural network, and bidirectional transformer (BT). The average of the performance difference for each combination of categorizations was calculated across all articles. Results: The articles covered various scenarios, with the best performance for each article ranging from 0.355 to 0.985 in F1-score. Examining the overall relative performances, the BT category outperformed every other category (average F1-score between 0.2335 and 0.0439). The percentage of articles on implementing BTs has increased over the years. Conclusions: NLP has demonstrated the ability to identify and extract cancer-related entities from unstructured textual data. Generally, more advanced models outperform less advanced ones. The BT category performed the best.

Indexed as

Data MiningElectronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalNatural Language ProcessingNeoplasmsHumansMachine LearningNeural Networks, Computerbidirectional transformerclinical textual datainformation extractionnatural language processingneural networkperformancereviewrule-based solutionstraditional machine learning

Identifiers

PMID40939201
PMCPMC12431712

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.