ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Automated Esophageal Cancer Staging From Free-Text Radiology Reports: Large Language Model Evaluation Study.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Tumor and Node Staging from Esophageal Cancer Endoscopic Ultrasound Reports: A Benchmark of Advanced Reasoning Models with Prompt Engineering and Cross-Lingual Evaluation.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- TNM-Accountable Whole-Body 3-Dimensional Fluorodeoxyglucose Positron Emission Tomography/Computed Tomography Report Drafting in Lung Cancer Cohorts via Structured Impressions and Organ-wise Exemplar Synthesis.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 2026Article
- Building novel LLM-enabled explainable ensemble transformer models combining endoscopic and CT images for discriminating the different grades of gastrointestinal cancers.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Enabling Just-in-Time Clinical Oncology Analysis With Large Language Models: Feasibility and Validation Study Using Unstructured Synthetic Data.JMIR medical 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate staging of esophageal cancer is crucial for determining prognosis and guiding treatment strategies, but manual interpretation of radiology reports by clinicians is prone to variability and limited accuracy, resulting in reduced staging accuracy. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in medical applications, but their utility in esophageal cancer staging remains underexplored. Objective: This study aims to compare the performance of 3 locally deployed LLMs (INF-72B, Qwen2.5-72B, and LLaMA3.1-70B) and clinicians in preoperative esophageal cancer staging using free-text radiology reports. Methods: This retrospective study included 200 patients from Shanghai Chest Hospital who underwent esophageal cancer surgery from May to December 2024. The dataset consisted of 1134 Chinese free-text radiology reports. The reference standard was derived from postoperative pathological staging. A total of 3 LLMs determined tumor classification (T1-T4), node classification (N0-N3), and overall staging (I-IV) using 3 prompting strategies (zero-shot, chain-of-thought, and a proposed interpretable reasoning [IR] method). The McNemar test and Pearson chi-square test were used for comparisons. Results: INF-72B+IR achieved a superior overall staging accuracy of 61.5% and an F1-score of 0.60, substantially higher than the clinicians' accuracy of 39.5% and F1-score of 0.39 (all P<.001). Qwen2.5-72B+IR also demonstrated an advantage, achieving an overall staging accuracy of 46% and an F1-score of 0.51, which was better than the clinicians' performance (P<.001). LLaMA3.1-70B showed no statistically significant difference in overall staging performance compared to clinicians (all P>0.5). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that LLMs, particularly when guided by the proposed IR strategy, can accurately and reliably perform esophageal cancer staging from free-text radiology reports. This approach not only provides high-performance predictions but also offers a transparent and verifiable reasoning process, highlighting its potential as a valuable decision-support tool to augment human expertise in complex clinical diagnostic tasks.
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.