ArticleNeurosurgery2026
Natural Language Processing Methods Automate Molecular Marker Extraction From Glioma Pathology Reports.
Article in Neurosurgery, 2026. 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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesMolecular markers such as isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) and alpha-thalassemia/mental retardation syndrome X-linked (ATRX) status are essential for glioma classification and treatment planning, but their manual extraction from pathology reports creates significant research bottlenecks. This study evaluated 3 Natural Language Processing approaches with increasing computational complexity: deterministic Regular Expressions (RegEx), statistical Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) with logistic regression, and contextual deep learning Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). We address whether more intensive approaches provide sufficient performance benefits over simpler approaches in computational pathology research.
methodsWe analyzed pathology reports from 404 patients with glioma at Institution A and 197 at Institution B for external validation. IDH analysis included 399 (Institution A) and 193 (Institution B) patients; ATRX analysis included 361 and 130 patients, respectively. All approaches underwent identical preprocessing steps, including text normalization, terminology standardization, and context extraction. Performance was evaluated using standard classification metrics and memory usage benchmarks on internal and external validation data sets.
resultsSimpler approaches outperformed more intensive approaches on external validation. For IDH, Regex achieved near-perfect accuracy (99%, area under the curve [AUC] 1.000) and TF-IDF performed exceptionally (94.2%, AUC 0.984), while BlueBERT underperformed (85.2%, AUC 0.934). For ATRX, Regex achieved perfect accuracy (100%, AUC 1.000) and TF-IDF maintained high accuracy (98.0%, AUC 0.998), outperforming BERT-large (84.6%, AUC 0.931). BERT-based approaches required 1825-1953 MB of memory vs Regex (0.82-5.52 MB) and TF-IDF (17.27-34.89 MB).
conclusionSimple Natural Language Processing approaches effectively automate molecular marker extraction from pathology reports with near-perfect accuracy while requiring minimal computational resources. This enables expanded sample sizes in retrospective studies, multi-institutional analyses of rare molecular subgroups, and accelerated biomarker research. Future work will focus on validation across larger data sets, infrastructure integration, and expansion to additional molecular markers.
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.