ArticleScientific reports2026
Natural language processing models for patient-centered summaries of prostatectomy pathology reports.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
Many patients now view their radical prostatectomy (RP) pathology before provider discussion, increasing anxiety and administrative burden. With expanding utilization of AI-assisted medical workflows, it is important to implement strategies to improve the interpretation of patient-facing information involving complex medical language. We compare a rules-based natural language processing (NLP) model and a large language model (LLM) using zero-shot prompting to identify the optimal framework for developing accurate, patient-facing RP pathology summaries. Models were assessed for accuracy in extracting key pathology features, calculating recurrence-free probabilities at varying intervals, and providing clinical recommendations from pathology reports at a single institution. Error-free summaries were generated in 92% of rules-based NLP and 97% of LLM reports (p = 0.18). In an external test set of differently formatted RP pathology reports from a separate institution, the LLM maintained high accuracy without additional training, while the rules-based NLP model achieved similarly high accuracy after minimal refinement. These findings suggest that both approaches can effectively support patient-facing pathology summaries, allowing practices and hospital systems to adopt the framework best suited to their technical resources, financial considerations, governance infrastructure, and institutional priorities.
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.