ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Leveraging large language models to extract smoking history from clinical notes for lung cancer surveillance.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models decode narrative pathology reports to define clinically relevant subtypes in IgA nephropathy.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Fully Automated Abstraction of Longitudinal Breast Oncology Records with Off-The-Shelf Large Language Models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- RELEAP: reinforcement-enhanced label-efficient active phenotyping for electronic health records.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in lung cancer care: current applications, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
27 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Accurate smoking documentation in electronic health records (EHRs) is crucial for risk assessment and patient monitoring. However, key information is often missing or inaccurately recorded. Large language models (LLMs) present a promising solution for interpreting clinical narratives to extract comprehensive smoking data. We developed a framework utilizing LLMs combined with rule-based longitudinal smoothing techniques to enhance data quality. We compared generative LLMs (Gemini-1.5-Flash, PaLM-2-Text-Bison, GPT-4) against BERT-based models using 1683 manually annotated clinical notes from 518 patients across Stanford and Sutter Health systems. Generative LLMs achieved superior performance ( > 96% accuracy) across seven smoking variables, with external validation showing robust generalizability (97.5-98.8% accuracy). We deployed Gemini-1.5-Flash to 79,408 notes from 4792 lung cancer patients, demonstrating that risk model-based surveillance incorporating smoking factors outperformed NCCN Guidelines in identifying second malignancies. Our study highlights the potential of generative LLMs to improve smoking history documentation quality, enhancing lung cancer surveillance and broader clinical applications.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.