ArticleCommunications medicine2025
Neuro-symbolic AI for auditable cognitive information extraction from medical reports.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' perspectives on artificial intelligence in electrocardiography in clinical practice: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Beyond transparency: why Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) need explainable artificial intelligence (XAI).Chinese medicine · 2026Review
- Assessing Eligibility for Anticancer Drug Health Insurance Reimbursement Using Large Language Models: Benchmark Development and Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Explainable Quality Assessment and Measurement from Real-World Hip Ultrasound Cine Sweeps.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance comparison of a neuro-symbolic large language model system versus conventional AI models and human experts in cholangitis management.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Transforming oncology clinical trial matching through neuro-symbolic, multi-agent AI and an oncology-specific knowledge graph: a prospective evaluation in 3804 patients.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Performance Comparison of a Neuro-Symbolic Large Language Model System Versus Human Experts in Acute Cholecystitis Management.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Neuro-symbolic LLM Integration in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy.Research square · 2026Article
- Auditable large language model curation of clinical notes refines glucagon-like peptide-1 initiation, persistence ascertainment, and compounding use beyond prescription records.Biology methods & protocols · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.