Back

Agent-Based Large Language Model System for Extracting Structured Data from Breast Cancer Synoptic Reports: A Dual-Validation Study

Hart, S. N.; Bergamaschi, T. S.

2025-11-26 health informatics
10.1101/2025.11.25.25340989 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo develop and validate an agent-based Large Language Model (LLM) system for extracting structured data from breast cancer synoptic pathology reports and assess the performance gap between synthetic and real-world validation. Materials and MethodsWe developed a modular AI agent-based framework employing sequential specialized LLMs for parsing pathology reports and extracting structured data. We normalized College of American Pathologists (CAP) cancer protocols into 8 sections, 86 subsections, and 229 discrete fields. Seven leading LLMs (gemini-2.5-pro, llama3.3-70b, phi4-14b, deepseek-r1 14B/70B, gemma3-27b, gemini-2.0-flash-lite) were validated using dual evaluation: synthetic validation (864 controlled test cases) and real-world ground truth (6,651 annotated fields from 90 pathology reports). ResultsSynthetic validation demonstrated strong performance (accuracy: 93.8-99.0%). Real-world evaluation revealed field extraction accuracy ranging from 61.8% to 87.7%, demonstrating a substantial "reality gap" with accuracy drops of 11-32 percentage points. The gemini-2.5-pro model achieved the highest real-world accuracy (87.7%). Model size did not predict performance: the 14B-parameter deepseek-r1 (77.6%) outperformed its 70B-parameter counterpart (70.4%). DiscussionThe substantial performance degradation from synthetic to real-world data underscores the complexity of authentic clinical documentation. Smaller models can achieve competitive or superior accuracy, reducing computational costs. With even the best models missing 12-38% of annotated fields, mandatory human verification is essential for clinical deployment. ConclusionWhile LLM-based extraction systems show promise for pathology data extraction, synthetic validation alone provides false confidence. Rigorous real-world ground truth evaluation with expert annotation is essential before clinical deployment. These systems are best positioned as screening tools with mandatory human oversight rather than autonomous decision-making systems.

Published in JAMIA Open (predicted rank #2) · training set

Matching journals

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

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.