Citations

PURPOSE To evaluate open-source large language models (LLMs) for extracting cancer-specific phenotypic data, benchmark their performance against GPT4 models, and assess the impact of fine-tuning with training data sizes. METHODS Open-source LLMs (Mistral, LLaMa, MAMBA, BioMistral) were evaluated in zero-/one-shot and fine-tuned setups against GPT4-turbo/GPT4o to extract the cancer presence, progression, response, and metastatic sites from radiology impressions of patients with solid tumors treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Performance metrics (accuracy, precision, recall, F1-score) were computed. McNemar's odds ratio (OR), measuring which model is more likely to be correct when they disagree, was computed with 95% CI. Statistical significance was assessed using the alpha of .000139. RESULTS This study included 2,623 patients (25,273 radiology impressions). In zero-/one-shot settings, GPT4-turbo/GPT4o outperformed open-source LLMs. However, fine-tuned open-source LLMs achieved higher F1-scores than GPT4 models. Compared with the best-performing GPT4 model, fine-tuned Mistral0.2-7.3B (OR, 0.27 [95% CI, 0.20 to 0.36]; P < .00001), Mistral0.3-7.3B (OR, 0.26 [95% CI, 0.19 to 0.36]; P < .00001), LLaMa2-6.7B (OR, 0.30 [95% CI, 0.22 to 0.40]; P < .00001), LLaMa3.1-8B (OR, 0.37 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.48]; P < .00001), and MAMBA-2.8B (OR, 0.32 [95% CI, 0.24 to 0.42]; P < .00001) showed significantly better performance in ascertaining disease progression. Performance was consistently better for inferring overall response, any evidence of cancer, and sites of metastases, with no significant differences among fine-tuned open-source LLMs. Fine-tuning gains plateaued at 25% of training data (5,718 impressions) and remained comparable at 5% (1,144 impressions). CONCLUSION Open-source LLMs, when fine-tuned using labeled data, can effectively automate the ascertainment of key radiophenotypic variables using only the impression section of radiology reports, without the full report text. Their consistent performance in small training sets suggests that these models may provide a scalable approach for phenotypic characterization of patients with cancer in real-world clinical settings.

Abstract Background The ability of large language models (LLMs) to work collaboratively and screen studies in a systematic review (SR) is under-explored. Hence, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in automating the process of screening in systematic reviews. Methods This is an observational study which included labeled data (title and abstracts) for five SRs. Originally, two reviewers screened the citations independently for eligibility. A third reviewer cross-checked each citation for quality assurance. GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 were used using zero-shot chain-of-thought prompting. Collaborative approaches included (i): conflict resolution using benefit of the doubt, (ii) majority voting using an independent third LLM and (iii) conflict resolution using an informed third LLM. Performance was assessed using accuracy, precision for exclusion, and recall for inclusion. Work saved over samples (WSS) was computed to estimate the reduction in manual human effort. Results A total of 11300 articles were included in this study. The individual models, GPT-4, Claude-3-Sonnet, and Gemini-Pro-1.0 exhibited a high precision for exclusion, achieving 99.7%, 99.7%, and 99.2% and high recall for inclusion achieving 95.5%, 96.6% and 85.7%, respectively. However, the collaborative approach utilizing the two best-performing models (GPT-4 and Claude-3S) achieved an average precision of 99.9% and a recall of 98.5% (across all collaborative approaches). Furthermore, the proposed collaborative approach resulted in an average WSS of 63.5%, compared to the average WSS of 45.2% for individual models. Conversational LLM interactions showed a consistent pattern of results. Limitations This study was limited due to reliance on proprietary models, and evaluation on oncology datasets. Conclusion Evidence shows that collaborative LLMs enable efficient, high-performing screening in systematic reviews, supporting continuous evidence updates. Primary funding source NIH (U24CA265879-01-1) and Carolyn-Ann-Kennedy-Bacon Fund.

Abstract Objective Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world 2-reviewer process. Materials and Methods A dataset of 10 trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n = 5) and held-out test sets (n = 17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the 2 LLMs were considered concordant if they were the same for a given variable. The discordant responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Accuracy, ie, the total number of correct responses divided by the total number of responses, was computed to assess performance. Results In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, increasing accuracy to 0.76. Discussion Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy. Conclusion Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, 2-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly “living” systematic reviews.