ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Clinician expertise and prompt engineering enhance cancer information extraction in electronic health records by small language models.
Article in Communications medicine, 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
- Update of
Authors and funding
44 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundReal-world data (RWD) in unstructured electronic health records (EHRs) is crucial for understanding complex diseases like cancer, but extracting structured information is challenging due to linguistic variability, semantic complexity, and privacy concerns. This study evaluates the performance of four small, locally deployable language models for information extraction from Italian EHRs.
methodsWe examine three prompting strategies (zero-shot, few-shot, and annotated few-shot) across English and Italian, involving clinicians with varying expertise to assess the impact of prompt design on accuracy. We evaluate the performance of four open-source small language models (SLMs) for clinical information extraction from Italian electronic health records (EHRs) in the APOLLO 11 trial on non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The extraction protocol involves four steps: problem definition, data preprocessing, Large Language Model (LLM)-based information extraction, and output evaluation.
resultsWe show that general-purpose models (e.g., LLaMA 3.1 8B) outperform biomedical models in most tasks, particularly in extracting binary features. Multiclass variables such as TNM (Tumor, Node, Metastasis) staging, PD-L1 (Programmed death-ligand 1), and ECOG-PS (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-Performance Status) are more difficult due to implicit language and lack of standardization. Few-shot prompting and native-language inputs significantly improve performance and reduced hallucinations. Clinical expertise enhances consistency in the extraction, particularly among students using annotated examples.
conclusionsThe study confirms that privacy-preserving SLMs can be deployed locally for efficient and secure cancer data extraction. Findings highlight the need for hybrid systems combining SLMs with expert input and underline the importance of aligning clinical documentation practices with SLM capabilities. This is the first study to benchmark SLMs on Italian EHRs and investigate the role of clinical expertise in prompt engineering, offering valuable insights for the future integration of SLMs into real-world clinical workflows.
Identifiers
42463788What 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.