Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41082723›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Deep Learning Models to Screen Electronic Health Records for Breast and Colorectal Cancer Progression: Performance Evaluation Study.

Pascal Lambert, Rayyan Khan, Marshall Pitz, Harminder Singh, Helen Chen, Kathleen Decker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Pascal LambertPaul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2126-7591
Rayyan KhanPaul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5816-1251
Marshall PitzPaul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1858-5081
Harminder SinghPaul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9354-2356
Helen ChenSchool of Public Health Science, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9401-7895
Kathleen DeckerPaul Albrechtsen Research Institute CancerCare Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0044-7545

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer progression is an important outcome in cancer research. However, it is frequently documented only in electronic health records (EHRs) as unstructured text, which requires lengthy and costly chart reviews to extract for retrospective studies.

objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the performance of 3 deep learning language models in determining breast and colorectal cancer progression in EHRs.

methodsEHRs for individuals diagnosed with stage 4 breast or colorectal cancer between 2004 and 2020 in Manitoba, Canada, were extracted. A chart review was conducted to identify cancer progression in each EHR. Data were analyzed with pretrained deep learning language models (Bio+ClinicalBERT, Clinical-BigBird, and Clinical-Longformer). Sensitivity, positive predictive value, area under the curve, and scaled Brier scores were used to evaluate performance. Influential tokens were identified by removing and adding tokens to EHRs and examining changes in predicted probabilities.

resultsClinical-BigBird and Clinical-Longformer models for breast and colorectal cancer cohorts demonstrated higher accuracy than the Bio+ClinicalBERT models (scaled Brier scores for breast cancer models: 0.70-0.79 vs 0.49-0.71; scaled Brier scores for colorectal cancer models: 0.61-0.65 vs 0.49-0.61). The same models also demonstrated higher sensitivity (breast cancer models: 86.6%-94.3% vs 76.6%-87.1%; colorectal cancer models: 73.1%-78.9% vs 62.8%-77.0%) and positive predictive value (breast cancer models: 77.9%-92.3% vs 80.6%-85.5%; colorectal cancer models: 81.6%-86.3% vs 72.9%-82.9%) compared to Bio+ClinicalBERT models. All models could remove more than 84% of charts from the chart review process. The most influential token was the word progression, which was influenced by the presence of other tokens and its position within an EHR.

conclusionsThe deep learning language models could help identify breast and colorectal cancer progression in EHRs and remove most charts from the chart review process. A limited number of tokens may influence model predictions. Improvements in model performance could be obtained by increasing the training dataset size and analyzing EHRs at the sentence level rather than at the EHR level.

Indexed as

Bio+ClinicalBERTbreast cancercancer progressionClinical-BigBirdClinical-Longformercolorectal cancernatural language processingretrospective chart review

Identifiers

PMID41082723
PMCPMC12559821

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.