ArticleInternational journal of medical informatics2026
Automated extraction of fluoropyrimidine treatment and treatment-related toxicities from clinical notes using natural language processing.
Article in International journal of medical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neuro-symbolic LLM Integration in Clinical Medicine: A Systematic Review and Taxonomy.Research square · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveFluoropyrimidines are widely prescribed for colorectal and breast cancers, but are associated with toxicities such as hand-foot syndrome and cardiotoxicity. Since toxicity documentation is often embedded in clinical notes, we aimed to develop and evaluate natural language processing (NLP) methods to extract treatment and toxicity information. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe constructed a gold-standard dataset of 236 clinical notes from 204,165 adult oncology patients. Domain experts annotated categories related to treatment regimens and toxicities. We developed rule-based, machine learning-based (Random Forest [RF], Support Vector Machine [SVM], Logistic Regression [LR]), deep learning-based (BERT, ClinicalBERT), and large language models (LLM)-based NLP approaches (zero-shot and error analysis prompting). A 5-fold cross validation were conducted to validate each model.
resultsError analysis prompting achieved optimal precision, recall, and F1 scores for treatment (F1 = 1.000) and toxicities extraction (F1 = 0.965), whereas zero-shot perform moderately (treatment F1 = 0.889, toxicities extraction F1 = 0.854) Rule-based reached F1 = 1.000 for treatment and F1 = 0.904 for toxicities extraction. LR and SVM ranked second and fourth for toxicities extraction (LR F1 = 0.914, SVM F1 = 0.903). Deep learning and RF underperformed, with performance of BERT reached F1 = 0.792 for treatment and F1 = 0.837 for toxicities extraction.,ClinicalBERT reached F1 = 0.797 for treatment and F1 = 0.884 for toxicities extraction). RF reached F1 = 0.745 for treatment and F1 = 0.853 for toxicities extraction. DISCUSSION: LMM-based error analysis outperformed all others, followed by machine learning methods. Machine learning and deep learning methods were limited by small training data and showed limited generalizability, particularly for rare categories.
conclusionLLM-based error analysis most effectively extracted fluoropyrimidine treatment and toxicity information from clinical notes, and has strong potential to support oncology research and pharmacovigilance.
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.