ArticleScientific reports2025
Development of a machine learning model for automatic data extraction from breast cancer pathology reports.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Performance of large language models for extracting clinical data from breast cancer pathology reports: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Data extraction from medical records is crucial for clinical research, with current methods relying on human annotation. Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Machine Learning-based approaches show promise. We develop and evaluate an NLP pipeline constructed by selecting among four candidate models; ClinicalBERT, PubMedBERT, BioMedRoBERTa and Mistral-Nemo LLM to automate data extraction of 1,795 breast cancer pathology reports obtained from the Providence Health Services Authority in British Columbia. We also explore the effect of further pre-training the BERT-based models using the SQuAD question-answering dataset. Accuracy was evaluated by comparing model output and human annotation. PubMedBERT pre-trained on SQuAD proved to be the best performing model, achieving an overall accuracy of 97.4%. 30 of the 32 FOIs had an accuracy greater than 95.0%. Our model outperformed a previous rule-based algorithm (95.6%). Our findings demonstrate how a high-performing question-answering NLP pipeline for breast cancer pathology can provide a scalable approach to high-fidelity extraction of clinicopathologic features, thereby enhancing research efficiency and improving clinical outcomes.
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.