ArticleJMIR AI2026
Extracting Quality-of-Life Information of Patients Diagnosed With Breast Cancer From Health Care Online Forum Posts Using Open-Source Large Language Models: Algorithm Development and Evaluation Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 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
Background: Quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires are an established instrument designed to assess overall well-being and QoL of patients. They are important in predicting the outcome of the disease and understanding the needs of individual patients. However, their repeated collection imposes a substantial burden on both patients and clinical professionals. Many patients seek emotional support and mutual exchange in online communities for peer support, where they frequently share detailed descriptions of symptoms and treatment experiences, addressing topics covered in QoL questionnaires. The emergence of large language models (LLMs) uncovers potential for automatic extraction of relevant QoL information from patient-generated text. Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare various open-source LLMs and optimization approaches for automated extraction of QoL information from forum posts. Methods: The dataset consisted of 840 English-language posts from patients with breast cancer recruited on Inspire online communities, manually annotated with sentence-level text spans indicating whether and where posts contained information relevant to 53 QoL questions from standardized questionnaires. Eleven open-source LLMs were evaluated in a zero-shot setup under 2 input conditions: post-only and post with additional context. For the GPT-OSS-20B model, additional experiments assessed the impact of chain-of-thought prompting, instruction optimization, few-shot prompting, simultaneous all-questions prompting, and parameter-efficient fine-tuning. For correctly classified yes and no instances, the overlap between model-generated evidence and human-annotated spans was evaluated. Results: Across 11 evaluated LLMs, Qwen3-14B achieved the highest macro Conclusions: Automated extraction of QoL information from patient-generated text using open-source LLMs remains a challenging task. While prompt optimization techniques failed to improve baseline zero-shot performance, parameter-efficient fine-tuning with LoRA significantly increased accuracy. However, current models still struggle to reliably detect explicit symptom expressions in heavily imbalanced data, too often predicting the majority class "not in the text." Before such tools can be successfully integrated into clinical practice, future research must prioritize strategies to capture these minority-class signals.
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.