Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41318702›Full record

ArticleVirchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology2026

Large language model-based approach for low-cost, rapid and accurate automated extraction of predictive biomarker testing results from Dutch pathology reports.

Vincent D de Jager, Michiel van der Ree, Betzabel Cajiao Garcia, Chantal Kuijpers, Anthonie J van der Wekken, Léon C van Kempen, Ed Schuuring, Stefan M Willems

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

8 authors.

Vincent D de JagerDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Michiel van der ReeCenter for Information Technology, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Betzabel Cajiao GarciaDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Chantal KuijpersThe Dutch Nationwide Pathology Databank (Palga), Houten, the Netherlands.
Anthonie J van der WekkenDepartment of Pulmonary Diseases and Tuberculosis, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Léon C van KempenDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Ed SchuuringDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.
Stefan M WillemsDepartment of Pathology and Medical Biology, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands. s.m.willems@umcg.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

National cancer registries and pathology report databases contain valuable real-world information that may be used for assessment of healthcare quality or retrospective observational studies. As many of these data are currently non- or semi-structured, manual information extraction is needed, which is labor-intensive, costly and causes significant time delay to data analysis. This study aimed to develop a large language model (LLM)-based method to extract biomarker testing data for two routinely tested predictive biomarkers - EGFR and KRAS - from pathology reports of patients with non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). Patient cohorts and pathology reports were derived from the Netherlands Cancer Registry (NCR) and the Dutch nationwide pathology databank (Palga). Manually captured data regarding EGFR and KRAS testing in 3887 patients diagnosed with metastatic NSCLC in the Netherlands in 2019 were used for training, testing and validation. Annotated data included biomarker testing status for EGFR and KRAS, the use of next-generation sequencing (NGS), and test results including specific mutation(s). In the test set of the 2019 cohort, the model yielded (micro) F1 scores ≥ 0.98 for all variables (overall biomarker testing status, KRAS/EGFR testing, KRAS/EGFR test results). The trained model was then applied to pathology reports of 4122 patients diagnosed with NSCLC between July 2022 and June 2023, with manual annotation for 410 randomly selected cases to determine model accuracy. In this test set, (micro) F1 scores ≥ 0.95 were achieved. None of the manually annotated positive molecular test results were missed. Standardized notation of reported mutations was correct in 98.7% and 100.0% of KRAS and EGFR mutations, respectively. In the entire 2022-2023 cohort, model output revealed overall test rates of 88.1% and 86.4% for KRAS and EGFR, respectively. Among the tested patients, the model described positive KRAS and EGFR test results in 40.5% and 11.5%, respectively. This study illustrates the possibility to train and use an LLM-based model to accurately extract biomarker testing results from pathology reports of patients with lung cancer. This application enables rapid, low-cost assessment of biomarker testing, which can be used for evaluation of guideline adherence and retrospective biomarker follow-up studies at a nationwide level of the Netherlands.

Indexed as

Biomarkers, TumorCarcinoma, Non-Small-Cell LungData MiningLarge Language ModelsLung NeoplasmsErbB ReceptorsHumansMutationNetherlandsProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Biomarkers, TumorEGFR protein, humanErbB ReceptorsKRAS protein, humanProto-Oncogene Proteins p21(ras)Automated data extractionLarge language modelNon-small cell lung cancerPathology reportsPredictive biomarker testing

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.