ArticleJAMIA open2026
Agent-based large language model system for extracting structured data from breast cancer synoptic reports: a dual-validation study.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Performance of Large Language Models in Extracting Intestinal Symptoms From Electronic Health Records: Retrospective Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Observational
- Artificial Intelligence-Powered Histopathology in Stem Cell Research: Bridging Morphology, Function, and Omics.Current issues in molecular biology · 2026Review
- Performance of large language models for extracting clinical data from breast cancer pathology reports: a systematic review.NPJ digital medicine · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.