ArticleBleeding, thrombosis and vascular biology2026
Automated Identification of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis Events via Natural Language Processing: A Systematic Review of the Literature.
Article in Bleeding, thrombosis and vascular biology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate identification of cancer-associated thrombosis (CAT) in electronic health records is essential for disease surveillance, trial design, and the development of risk stratification models. Manual chart review is impractical at scale, while ICD-code or similar coding system-based extraction often misses events, fails to distinguish incident from prevalent events, or equates bland and tumor thrombi. Natural language processing (NLP) is a promising solution, offering scalable extraction of structured CAT events directly from clinical text. We systematically reviewed the literature for NLP-based pipelines for CAT identification according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science were queried for English language studies from 2010-2025. NLP methodology, training strategy, and model performance were extracted from relevant studies. Seven studies, implementing NLP approaches ranging from lexicon or rules-based pipelines to transformer models, met inclusion criteria. Most studies developed and evaluated models using text from a single institution, and only one distinguished incident CAT events from prevalent events. Reported metrics varied between studies, though models tended to exhibit higher specificity and negative predictive value than sensitivity and positive predictive value. Overall, current NLP systems for CAT identification have achieved desired results to assist but not supplant manual chart review. Major limitations include small and institution-specific datasets, absence of external validation, and lack of distinction between incident versus prevalent events. Development of generalizable models will require large, multi-institutional datasets as the field moves towards transformer-based models, and standardized evaluation metrics with shared benchmark test sets are needed for an unbiased measure of progress.
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.