ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Automated Extraction of Cancer Registry Data from Pathology Reports: Comparing LLM-Based and Ontology-Driven NLP Platforms.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer data standardization requires converting unstructured pathology reports into structured registry variables, a mostly manual and resource-intensive task. We evaluated two automated extraction platforms: Brim Analytics, an LLM-based system that guides and orchestrates abstraction, and DeepPhe, an ontology-driven system. Using 330 pancreatic adenocarcinoma and 34 breast cancer pathology reports from Johns Hopkins Hospital, we assessed both under deployment-realistic conditions. Brim Analytics achieved high accuracy across seven registry variables in pancreatic cancer (mean 96.7%), including T stage (96.4%) and histologic grade (97.0%), with a 3.0 p.p. decline on breast cancer (mean 93.7%). DeepPhe performed comparably for N stage (96.4% pancreatic, 94.1% breast) but had notable T stage deficits (83.6% pancreatic, 70.6% breast). Per-report processing times averaged 0.9 s (Brim, pancreatic), 4.6 s (Brim, breast), 1.1 s (DeepPhe, pancreatic), and 3.5 s (DeepPhe, breast). These results indicate that LLM-based extraction can achieve high accuracy across cancer types and support automated data workflows.
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.