ArticleJournal of pathology informatics2025
Leveraging large language models for structured information extraction from pathology reports.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Automated Identification of Complex Percutaneous Coronary Intervention from Cardiac Catheterization Reports using Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Large Language Models for Heterogeneous Data Mining in Liver Disease: Framework Development and Retrospective Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- A Secure, Scalable Large Language Model-Based System (CIDER) for High-Throughput Clinical Data Extraction From Medical Reports: Retrospective Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Sagittal Alignment Correction and the Extent of Intervertebral Distraction as Factors Associated with Postoperative Radiculitis Following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Accelerating real-world data collection using large language models in rare neoplasms: a bone sarcoma example.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026Article
- Digital Registrar: A Schema-First Framework for Multi-Cancer Privacy-Preserving Pathology Abstraction via Local LLMs.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance of large language models for extracting clinical data from breast cancer pathology reports: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Benchmarking GPT-5, LLaMA, and Mistral for Clinical Named Entity Recognition in Ophthalmology Progress Notes.Translational vision science & technology · 2026Article
- Leveraging Large Language Models to Extract Prognostic Pathology Features in Ewing Sarcoma.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Automating fine needle aspiration and non-gynecologic quality control using a large language model: A real-world evaluation of diagnostic accuracy and efficiency.CytoJournal · 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
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
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.