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 medRxiv
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 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
52.2%
50% of probability mass above
2
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
12.6%
3
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
2.8%
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 49%
2.1%
5
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
61 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
6
Artificial Intelligence in Medicine
15 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.7%
7
JAMIA Open
37 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
1.3%
8
Bioinformatics
1061 papers in training set
Top 8%
1.1%
9
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
45 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
10
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
11
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.9%
12
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.9%
13
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 59%
0.9%
14
BMC Bioinformatics
383 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.9%
15
Informatics in Medicine Unlocked
21 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
16
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 23%
0.8%
17
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.8%
18
Cancer Medicine
24 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.8%
19
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
20
Med
38 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.7%
21
Nature Cancer
35 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
22
iScience
1063 papers in training set
Top 37%
0.6%
23
European Journal of Cancer
10 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.6%
24
Database
51 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
25
International Journal of Medical Informatics
25 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.6%
26
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 6%
0.5%
27
Frontiers in Microbiology
375 papers in training set
Top 11%
0.5%
28
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 73%
0.5%
29
Cell Reports Medicine
140 papers in training set
Top 10%
0.5%
30
JMIR Medical Informatics
17 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.5%