A comparative study of zero-shot inference with large language models and supervised modeling in breast cancer pathology classification
Authors:
Madhumita Sushil,
Travis Zack,
Divneet Mandair,
Zhiwei Zheng,
Ahmed Wali,
Yan-Ning Yu,
Yuwei Quan,
Atul J. Butte
Abstract:
Although supervised machine learning is popular for information extraction from clinical notes, creating large annotated datasets requires extensive domain expertise and is time-consuming. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising transfer learning capability. In this study, we explored whether recent LLMs can reduce the need for large-scale data annotations. We curated a…
▽ More
Although supervised machine learning is popular for information extraction from clinical notes, creating large annotated datasets requires extensive domain expertise and is time-consuming. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising transfer learning capability. In this study, we explored whether recent LLMs can reduce the need for large-scale data annotations. We curated a manually-labeled dataset of 769 breast cancer pathology reports, labeled with 13 categories, to compare zero-shot classification capability of the GPT-4 model and the GPT-3.5 model with supervised classification performance of three model architectures: random forests classifier, long short-term memory networks with attention (LSTM-Att), and the UCSF-BERT model. Across all 13 tasks, the GPT-4 model performed either significantly better than or as well as the best supervised model, the LSTM-Att model (average macro F1 score of 0.83 vs. 0.75). On tasks with high imbalance between labels, the differences were more prominent. Frequent sources of GPT-4 errors included inferences from multiple samples and complex task design. On complex tasks where large annotated datasets cannot be easily collected, LLMs can reduce the burden of large-scale data labeling. However, if the use of LLMs is prohibitive, the use of simpler supervised models with large annotated datasets can provide comparable results. LLMs demonstrated the potential to speed up the execution of clinical NLP studies by reducing the need for curating large annotated datasets. This may result in an increase in the utilization of NLP-based variables and outcomes in observational clinical studies.
△ Less
Submitted 24 January, 2024;
originally announced January 2024.
CORAL: Expert-Curated medical Oncology Reports to Advance Language Model Inference
Authors:
Madhumita Sushil,
Vanessa E. Kennedy,
Divneet Mandair,
Brenda Y. Miao,
Travis Zack,
Atul J. Butte
Abstract:
Both medical care and observational studies in oncology require a thorough understanding of a patient's disease progression and treatment history, often elaborately documented in clinical notes. Despite their vital role, no current oncology information representation and annotation schema fully encapsulates the diversity of information recorded within these notes. Although large language models (L…
▽ More
Both medical care and observational studies in oncology require a thorough understanding of a patient's disease progression and treatment history, often elaborately documented in clinical notes. Despite their vital role, no current oncology information representation and annotation schema fully encapsulates the diversity of information recorded within these notes. Although large language models (LLMs) have recently exhibited impressive performance on various medical natural language processing tasks, due to the current lack of comprehensively annotated oncology datasets, an extensive evaluation of LLMs in extracting and reasoning with the complex rhetoric in oncology notes remains understudied. We developed a detailed schema for annotating textual oncology information, encompassing patient characteristics, tumor characteristics, tests, treatments, and temporality. Using a corpus of 40 de-identified breast and pancreatic cancer progress notes at University of California, San Francisco, we applied this schema to assess the zero-shot abilities of three recent LLMs (GPT-4, GPT-3.5-turbo, and FLAN-UL2) to extract detailed oncological history from two narrative sections of clinical progress notes. Our team annotated 9028 entities, 9986 modifiers, and 5312 relationships. The GPT-4 model exhibited overall best performance, with an average BLEU score of 0.73, an average ROUGE score of 0.72, an exact-match F1-score of 0.51, and an average accuracy of 68% on complex tasks (expert manual evaluation on subset). Notably, it was proficient in tumor characteristic and medication extraction, and demonstrated superior performance in relational inference like adverse event detection. However, further improvements are needed before using it to reliably extract important facts from cancer progress notes needed for clinical research, complex population management, and documenting quality patient care.
△ Less
Submitted 11 January, 2024; v1 submitted 7 August, 2023;
originally announced August 2023.
