Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41272253›Full record

ArticleCommunications medicine2025

Neuro-symbolic AI for auditable cognitive information extraction from medical reports.

George A Prenosil, Thilo K Weitzel, Sandra C Bello, Clemens Mingels, Giulia Manzini, Lorenz P Meier, Kuang-Yu Shi, Axel Rominger, Ali Afshar-Oromieh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing 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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
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

9 authors.

George A Prenosil *Department of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland. george.prenosil@insel.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6673-5374
Thilo K Weitzel *SCCE - Scientific Consulting, Computing and Engineering GmbH, Kirchlindach, Bern, Switzerland.
Sandra C BelloZentit GmbH, Muri bei Bern, Switzerland.
Clemens MingelsDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6761-5323
Giulia ManziniDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Lorenz P MeierDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Kuang-Yu ShiDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Axel RomingerDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1954-736X
Ali Afshar-OromiehDepartment of Nuclear Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital and University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 can interpret free text, but unreliable answers, opaque reasoning, and privacy risks limit their use in healthcare. In contrast, rule-based artificial intelligence (AI) provides transparent and reproducible results but struggles with free text. We aimed to combine the strengths of both approaches to test whether such a hybrid system can autonomously and reliably extract clinical data from diagnostic imaging reports.

methodsWe developed a neuro-symbolic AI that connects GPT-4 with a rule-based expert system through a semantic integration platform. GPT-4 extracted candidate facts from free-text reports, while the expert system verified them against medical rules, producing traceable, deterministic labels. We evaluated the system on 206 consecutive prostate cancer PET/CT scan reports, requiring extraction of 26 clinical parameters per report, generating 5356 data points, and answering three study questions: study inclusion, recurrent cancer identification, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level retrieval. Outputs were compared against physician-derived references, and discrepancies were reviewed by a blinded adjudicator.

resultsHere we show that neuro-symbolic AI outperforms GPT-4 alone and matches physicians in structuring and analysing reports. GPT-4 alone achieves F1 scores of 0.63 for study inclusion and 0.95 for recurrence detection, with 96.6% correct PSA values. Physicians reach F1 scores of 1.00 and 0.99, with 98.1% PSA accuracy. The neuro-symbolic AI scores twice 1.00 with 100% PSA accuracy and delivers always an auditable chain of reasoning. It intercepts two intentionally introduced reports with residual identifiers, preventing unintended transfer of sensitive data.

conclusionsUnlike standalone LLMs, neuro-symbolic AI can safely automate data extraction for clinical research and may provide a path toward trustworthy AI in healthcare practice.

Identifiers

PMID41272253
PMCPMC12638795

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.