Back

Implementing a context-augmented large language model to guide precision cancer medicine

Jun, H.; Tanaka, Y.; Johri, S.; Carvalho, F. L.; Jordan, A. C.; Labaki, C.; Nagy, M.; O'Meara, T. A.; Pappa, T.; Pimenta, E. M.; Saad, E.; Yang, D. D.; Gillani, R.; Tewari, A. K.; Reardon, B.; Van Allen, E. M.

2025-05-11 health informatics
10.1101/2025.05.09.25327312
Show abstract

The rapid expansion of molecularly informed therapies in oncology, coupled with evolving regulatory FDA approvals, poses a challenge for oncologists seeking to integrate precision cancer medicine into patient care. Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential for clinical applications, but their reliance on general knowledge limits their ability to provide up-to-date and niche treatment recommendations. To address this challenge, we developed a RAG-LLM workflow augmented with Molecular Oncology Almanac (MOAlmanac), a curated precision oncology knowledge resource, and evaluated this approach relative to alternative frameworks (i.e. LLM-only) in making biomarker-driven treatment recommendations using both unstructured and structured data. We evaluated performance across 234 therapy-biomarker relationships. Finally, we assessed real-world applicability of the workflow by testing it on actual queries from practicing oncologists. While LLM-only achieved 62-75% accuracy in biomarker-driven treatment recommendations, RAG-LLM achieved 79-91% accuracy with an unstructured database and 94-95% accuracy with a structured database. In addition to accuracy, structured context augmentation significantly increased precision (49% to 80%) and F1-score (57% to 84%) compared to unstructured data augmentation. In queries provided by practicing oncologists, RAG-LLM achieved 81-90% accuracy. These findings demonstrate that the RAG-LLM framework effectively delivers precise and reliable FDA-approved precision oncology therapy recommendations grounded in individualized clinical data, and highlight the importance of integrating a well-curated, structured knowledge base in this process. While our RAG-LLM approach significantly improved accuracy compared to standard LLMs, further efforts will enhance the generation of reliable responses for ambiguous or unsupported clinical scenarios.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
18.3%
2
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 0.5%
10.9%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 1%
8.1%
4
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 2%
8.1%
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 2%
8.1%
50% of probability mass above
6
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 1%
4.8%
7
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 49%
3.0%
8
Nature Medicine
based on 88 papers
Top 4%
2.5%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 7%
2.5%
10
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 28%
2.0%
11
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 3%
1.9%
12
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 88%
1.7%
13
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 1%
1.7%
14
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 3%
1.7%
15
Science Translational Medicine
based on 40 papers
Top 3%
1.4%
16
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 10%
1.3%
17
Scientific Data
based on 30 papers
Top 2%
1.3%
18
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
19
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 4%
0.9%
20
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 6%
0.9%
21
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
based on 11 papers
Top 3%
0.7%
22
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 7%
0.7%
23
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 4%
0.7%