ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
Leveraging Large Language Models for Thyroid Nodule Information Extraction and Matching Across Medical Reports.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
Accurate extraction of thyroid nodule features from radiology and pathology reports is clinically essential for guiding patient management decisions, such as surgical intervention or active surveillance. However, manual data extraction from electronic health records is labor-intensive and prone to inter-rater variability. To address this challenge, we evaluated open-source large language models (LLMs) for automating the extraction and matching of these critical nodule features. Using a retrospective dataset of 451 ultrasound and pathology report pairs, we developed an annotation schema capturing nodule characteristics. Two LLMs-Llama-3.3 70B and QwQ-32B-were benchmarked against manual annotations. Both models demonstrated near-perfect extraction accuracy for clinically relevant features such as location, size, and biopsy results. Notably, QwQ-32B achieved an F1 score of 0.987 on the complex multi-step reasoning task of matching nodules across reports. Our findings suggest integrating LLMs into clinical annotation workflows can significantly reduce clinician workload and inter-rater variability while maintaining high accuracy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41726406PMC12919533What 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.