ArticleJCO clinical cancer informatics2025
Integrating a Shareable Artificial Intelligence Model Into Clinical Research for Cancer Recurrence in Patients With Breast and Colorectal Cancer.
Article in JCO clinical cancer informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Fully Automated Abstraction of Longitudinal Breast Oncology Records with Off-The-Shelf Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeCancer recurrence in clinical settings is documented in unstructured text, requiring labor-intensive manual record review to extract this outcome. A shareable natural language processing model developed at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI)-DFCI-imaging-student-efficiently extracts cancer outcomes from radiology reports. We applied this model in a community oncology setting, aggregating report-level predictions to derive patient-level outcomes, and evaluated its performance in determining recurrence and time-to-recurrence in patients with breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC).
methodsWe randomly sampled 200 patients with BC and 200 patients with CRC from two cohorts at Kaiser Permanente Northern California. Patients were diagnosed with stage III disease (2005-2019) and followed until July 31, 2024, death, or disenrollment. We manually reviewed recurrence (local/regional/distant), recurrence date, and sites of recurrence using oncology, radiology, and pathology information in electronic health records. We then applied the DFCI-imaging-student model to radiology reports and compared recurrence based on the model outcomes against manual review.
resultsA total of 7,195 radiology reports were processed. During a median follow-up of 8.4 years for BC and 6.8 years for CRC, manual review identified 78 recurrence cases in BC (39%) and 70 in CRC (35%). The DFCI-imaging-student model demonstrated high sensitivity and specificity for recurrence detection in both cancers (breast: 92.3% and 92.6%, CRC: 94.3% and 86.9%) and moderate-to-high accuracy in identifying the sites of distant metastasis. Among true positives, the median error in time-to-recurrence was 0.16 months for breast and 0.48 months for CRC.
conclusionOutcomes derived from the DFCI-imaging-student model output demonstrated high accuracy, providing an efficient determination of recurrence and time-to-recurrence in large-scale research to improve recurrence surveillance and facilitate collaborative research.
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.