Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41756715›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2026

Agent-based large language model system for extracting structured data from breast cancer synoptic reports: a dual-validation study.

Steven N Hart, Teya S Bergamaschi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Observational
  2. Review
  3. 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

2 authors.

Steven N HartDepartment of Laboratory Medicine and Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55901, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7714-2734
Teya S BergamaschiDepartment of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To develop and validate an agent-based Large Language Model (LLM) system for extracting structured data from breast cancer synoptic pathology reports and assess the performance gap between synthetic and real-world validation. Materials and Methods: We developed a modular artificial intelligence (AI) agent-based framework employing sequential specialized LLMs for parsing pathology reports and extracting structured data. We normalized College of American Pathologists (CAP) cancer protocols into 8 sections, 86 subsections, and 229 discrete fields. Seven leading LLMs (gemini-2.5-pro, llama3.3-70b, phi4-14b, deepseek-r1 14B/70B, gemma3-27b, gemini-2.0-flash-lite) were validated using dual evaluation: synthetic validation (864 controlled test cases) and real-world ground truth (6651 annotated fields from 90 pathology reports). Results: Synthetic validation demonstrated strong performance (accuracy: 93.8%-99.0%). Real-world evaluation revealed field extraction recall ranging from 61.8% to 87.7%, demonstrating a substantial "reality gap" with performance drops of 11-32 percentage points. The gemini-2.5-pro model achieved the highest real-world recall (87.7%). Model size did not predict performance: the 14B-parameter deepseek-r1 (77.6%) outperformed its 70B-parameter counterpart (70.4%). Discussion: The substantial performance degradation from synthetic to real-world data underscores the complexity of authentic clinical documentation. Smaller models can achieve competitive or superior recall, reducing computational costs. With even the best models missing 12%-38% of annotated fields, mandatory human verification is essential for clinical deployment. Conclusion: While LLM-based extraction systems show promise for pathology data extraction, synthetic validation alone provides false confidence. Rigorous real-world ground truth evaluation with expert annotation is essential before clinical deployment. These systems are best positioned as screening tools with mandatory human oversight rather than autonomous decision-making systems.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceclinical data extractionlarge language modelsnatural language processingpathology reports

Identifiers

PMID41756715
PMCPMC12932940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.