Back

Automated Phenotypic Characterization in Rare Hematologic Malignancies Using a Large Language Model-Based Framework

Khan, M. A.; Ayub, U.; Jajja, S. A.; Anjum, M. U.; Warraich, K.; Jain, P.; Oberoi, J. K.; Al Abbas, M.; Sadiq, M. H.; Sarfraz, M. U.; Huang, Z.; Riaz, I. B.; Palmer, J. M.

2026-07-09 health informatics
10.64898/2026.06.26.26356633 medRxiv
Show abstract

Background. Diagnosis and risk stratification in rare hematologic malignancies such as myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) - polycythemia vera (PV), essential thrombocythemia (ET), and myelofibrosis (MF) - require expert review of longitudinal, heterogeneous clinical records. This process is cognitively demanding, inconsistently applied, and difficult to scale beyond tertiary centers. No automated phenotyping workflow currently exists for hematologic malignancies. Methods. A HIPAA-compliant large language model (LLM) framework for phenotyping MPN was developed to integrate (i) rule-based retrieval of bone marrow biopsy reports, clinical notes, and structured laboratory results from the electronic health record (EHR); (ii) zero-shot extraction of diagnostic and prognostic variables from unstructured text using GPT-4 Turbo; (iii) a clinician-informed source-prioritization algorithm to reconcile conflicting multi-source data; (iv) WHO/ICC-criteria-based diagnostic classification; and (v) NCCN-based risk stratification using the conventional risk model for PV, IPSET-thrombosis for ET, and DIPSS, DIPSS-plus, and MIPSS70/MIPSS70+ v2 for MF. Patients were identified via MPN-related ICD-9/10 codes; cases met 2017 WHO criteria or had a hematologist-documented diagnosis, and controls did not. The cohort was split into a prompt-development set (n = 60) and a held-out test set (n = 450; 75 cases and 75 controls per disease). Ground truth was established by independent dual-clinician chart review with consensus adjudication. LLM performance was evaluated against the ground truth: variable-level extraction using accuracy, F1 score, and Cohen's kappa; patient-level diagnostic classification using sensitivity, specificity, and Cohen's kappa; and prognostic risk stratification (among confirmed cases) using accuracy, weighted F1 score, and quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa. Wilson 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were used for proportions and bootstrap 95% CIs with 500 resamples for F1 scores. Results. The held-out test set included 450 patients (PV: 150; ET: 150; MF: 150) with pathology reports and structured laboratory results, and 172 patients (PV: 52; ET: 55; MF: 65) with clinical notes. From pathology reports, overall variable extraction accuracy and F1 score were 99% (95% CI, 98-100) and 1.00 (0.99-1.00) for PV, 100% (99-100) and 0.99 (0.96-1.00) for ET, and 100% (99-100) and 0.99 (0.97-1.00) for MF. From clinical notes, overall accuracy and F1 score were 96% (91-100) and 0.94 (0.85-1.00) for PV, 100% (100-100) and 1.00 (1.00-1.00) for ET, and 100% (99-100) and 0.98 (0.95-1.00) for MF. Diagnostic sensitivity was 100% (95% CI, 95.1-100.0) for PV, ET, and MF; specificity was 98.7% (92.8-99.8) for PV and 100% (95.1-100.0) for both ET and MF, with Cohen's kappa of 0.99 for PV and 1.00 for ET and MF. Risk stratification accuracy was 100% with weighted F1 score of 1.00 and quadratic-weighted Cohen's kappa of 1.00 across all three diseases. A pre-specified source-ablation analysis showed that pathology reports alone were sufficient for diagnosis (sensitivity 98.7% for PV, 100% for ET, 96.0% for MF; specificity 100% across all three subtypes) but inadequate for prognostication (accuracy 69.3% for PV, 93.3% for ET, 77.3% for MF). Adding clinical notes to pathology reports recovered full prognostic accuracy of 100% across all three diseases. Conclusions. This first-in-class automated framework achieved expert-level performance for MPN diagnosis and risk stratification from real-world EHR data, establishing a foundation for scalable, standardized phenotyping in rare hematologic malignancies. Prospective, multi-site validation is warranted before clinical deployment.

Matching journals

The top 16 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Blood
74 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
6.8%
2
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 28%
5.5%
3
Nature Medicine
125 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
4.1%
4
Leukemia
42 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.5%
5
eBioMedicine
183 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
3.3%
6
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
71 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
3.2%
7
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
39 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
3.2%
8
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
43 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
2.8%
9
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 38%
2.8%
10
Annals of Internal Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.5%
11
BMC Medical Research Methodology
47 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
12
Genetics in Medicine
78 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
2.5%
13
Annals of the American Thoracic Society
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.4%
14
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
22 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
2.1%
15
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 41%
2.1%
16
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.1%
50% of probability mass above
17
Cancer Medicine
26 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
18
Communications Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.7%
19
Blood Advances
62 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.7%
20
Modern Pathology
22 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.7%
21
Kidney International Reports
15 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
22
British Journal of Haematology
15 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
1.5%
23
Cytometry Part A
33 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.5%
24
HemaSphere
16 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
25
Blood Cancer Journal
14 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
1.3%
26
Journal of Personalized Medicine
28 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.1%
27
The Lancet Digital Health
25 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.1%
28
npj Precision Oncology
53 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
29
European Respiratory Journal
59 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.1%
30
Haematologica
25 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.1%