ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Detection of cancer recurrence from Thai-English electronic medical records using sentence embeddings.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study developed and validated monolingual and bilingual sentence-bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (SBERT) models for detecting cancer recurrence within Thai-English electronic medical records (EMRs) from Thai cancer hospitals.
methodA multicentre dataset of 32 436 documents from 1250 patients was used for model development. External validation involved an independent dataset of 9244 documents from 384 patients across two Thai cancer hospitals. Performance was benchmarked against a fine-tuned PubMedBERT (MetBERT).
resultsThe development dataset included breast (43.9%), colorectal (12.1%), cervical (28.0%) and head and neck (16.0%) cancers. MetBERT achieved the highest area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) for locoregional versus no recurrence (11.1%) and locoregional versus distant recurrence (91.7%), while monolingual-SBERT excelled at distant versus no recurrence (32.0%). External validation demonstrated MetBERT superiority for locoregional versus no recurrence (9.30%-21.50%). For distant versus no recurrence, bilingual-SBERT performed best with AUPRC 17.55%-24.39%. While MetBERT led in distinguishing locoregional versus distant recurrence (88.30%-94.70%), bilingual-SBERT demonstrated robust external validation performance (AUPRC 85.25%-91.80%). DISCUSSION: Low AUPRC values (9%-32%) reflect the extreme class imbalance in real-world data (~1% recurrence prevalence). Despite this, fine-tuned MetBERT achieved highest performance, while bilingual-SBERT demonstrated superior robustness during external validation. This validates sentence embedding models for handling mixed Thai-English medical records in multilingual clinical environments.
conclusionSentence embedding frameworks provide a practical, generalisable solution for detecting cancer recurrence within multilingual EMRs. Despite text-length constraints, these models are suitable for clinical integration as a screening tool for cancer registry 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.