Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41340635›Full record

ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025

Leveraging large language models for structured information extraction from pathology reports.

Jeya Balaji Balasubramanian, Daniel Adams, Ioannis Roxanis, Amy Berrington de Gonzalez, Penny Coulson, Jonas S Almeida, Montserrat García-Closas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pathology informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors.

Jeya Balaji BalasubramanianDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr, NCI Shady Grove, Room 7E554, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Daniel AdamsThe Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Imperial College London, London, UK.
Ioannis RoxanisThe Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Amy Berrington de GonzalezThe Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Imperial College London, London, UK.
Penny CoulsonDivision of Genetics and Epidemiology, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK.
Jonas S AlmeidaDivision of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, 9609 Medical Center Dr, NCI Shady Grove, Room 7E554, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Montserrat García-ClosasThe Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research Unit, The Institute of Cancer Research, London and Imperial College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Structured information extraction from unstructured histopathology reports facilitates data accessibility for clinical research. Manual extraction by experts is time-consuming and expensive, limiting scalability. Large language models (LLMs) offer efficient automated extraction through zero-shot prompting, requiring only natural language instructions without labeled data or training. We evaluate LLMs' accuracy in extracting structured information from breast cancer histopathology reports, compared to manual extraction by a trained human annotator. Methods: We developed the Medical Report Information Extractor, a web application leveraging LLMs for automated extraction. We also developed a gold-standard extraction dataset to evaluate the human annotator alongside five LLMs including GPT-4o, a leading proprietary model, and the Llama 3 model family, which allows self-hosting for data privacy. Our assessment involved 111 breast cancer histopathology reports from the Generations study, extracting 51 pathology features specified within the study's data dictionary. Results: Evaluation against the gold-standard dataset showed that both Llama 3.1 405B (94.7% accuracy) and GPT-4o (96.1%) achieved extraction accuracy comparable to the human annotator (95.4%; Conclusion: We developed an open-source tool for structured information extraction that demonstrated expert human-level accuracy in our evaluation using state-of-the-art LLMs. The tool can be customized by non-programmers using natural language and the modular design enables reuse for diverse extraction tasks to produce standardized, structured data facilitating analytics through improved accessibility and interoperability.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceInformation storage and retrievalNatural language processingPathologySemantic web

Identifiers

PMID41340635
PMCPMC12670944

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.