ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Introducing mCODEGPT as a zero-shot information extraction from clinical free text data tool for cancer research.
Article in Communications medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Extracting adverse event nature, severity, timelines and resulting interventions from clinical notes of patients receiving CAR-T cell therapy using large language models.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Protocol for evaluating ChatGPT in biomedical association generation and verification using a RAG-enabled, cross-model majority voting workflow.STAR protocols · 2026Article
- Full-Body AI Agent: A Perspective on Multi-Scale Collaborative AI for Systemic Biology and Precision Medicine.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- Validating large language model-assisted data extraction from clinical notes.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Extracting adverse event nature, severity, timelines and resulting interventions from clinical notes of patients receiving CAR-T therapy using large language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- RescueGPT: An Automated System for Detecting Adverse Safety Events in Prehospital Emergency Medical Service Notes With a Zero-Shot Approach With Large Language Models: A Proof-of-Concept Study.Learning health systems · 2026Article
- The Power of Multimodality in Multimodal Large Language Models, Unimodal ChatGPT 5.0, and Human Clinical Experts on a Wound Care Certification Examination: Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- SmokeBERT and Beyond: Bridging Clinical Narratives and Structured Smoking Data to Improve Lung Cancer Screening.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe vast amount of natural language clinical notes about patients with cancer presents a challenge for efficient information extraction, standardization, and structuring. Traditional NLP methods require extensive annotation by domain experts for each type of named entity and necessitate model training, highlighting the need for an efficient and accurate extraction method.
methodsThis study introduces a tool based on the Large Language Model (LLM) for zero-shot information extraction from cancer-related clinical notes into structured data aligned with the minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE™) structure. We utilize the zero-shot learning capabilities of LLMs for information extraction, eliminating the need for data annotated by domain experts for training. Our methodology employs advanced hierarchical prompt engineering strategies to overcome common LLM limitations like token hallucination and accuracy issues. We tested the approach on 1,000 synthetic clinical notes representing various cancer types, comparing its performance to a traditional single-step prompting method.
resultsOur hierarchical prompt engineering strategy (accuracy = 94%, misidentification, and misplacement rate = 5%) outperforms the traditional prompt strategy (accuracy = 87%, misidentification, and misplacement rate = 10%) in information extraction. By unifying staging systems (e.g., TNM, FIGO) and specific stage details (e.g., Stage II) into a standardized framework, our approach achieves improved accuracy in extracting cancer stage information.
conclusionsOur approach demonstrates that LLMs, when guided by structured prompting, can accurately extract complex clinical information without the need for expert-labeled data. This method has the potential to harness unstructured data for advancing cancer research.
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.