ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Large language models for cancer registry abstraction: a real-world evaluation across models, variables, and cancer types.
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
16 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer registries enable cancer surveillance at the population level. These registries require significant human-time to read through many different parts of the electronic health record, including structured data and lengthy, free-text clinical reports, to abstract values for hundreds of required variables. Large language models (LLMs) offer the possibility to significantly improve this process by supporting and speeding up cancer registry data abstraction. However, it is unclear how well these models perform at real-world cancer registry abstraction involving multiple cancer types and large patient volumes. Here, we evaluate five foundational LLMs for their ability to reliably abstract cancer registry variables. We leverage hospital cancer registry data from a large regional health system as the ground truth and use LLMs to abstract from clinical reports eight registry variables for 5,939 patients with seven different cancer types. We use a zero-shot prompting strategy to compare LLM ability on commonly abstracted cancer variables with different data types. The results show that larger and more advanced models (Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-OSS-120b, GPT-OSS-20b) generally outperform smaller models (Gemma 12b, LLaMA 3.1 8b). The best performing models show F1 scores around 0.8 for cancer registry variables with low cardinality (grade, summary stage, laterality), with only slightly lower F1 scores for variables with high cardinality (primary site, regional nodes examined, regional nodes positive). On the more complex task of precise date extraction, all models showed decreased performance on both diagnosis and treatment dates (exact accuracy ~0.55 for the best performing models), which increased to ~0.85 for a tolerance within ±30 days. These results quantify the performance of various models as well as the potential and limitations of LLMs in cancer registry abstraction tasks.
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.