Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41550701›Full record

ArticleTechnical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology2026

From BERT to GPT-4: A systematic review of AI-Driven toxicity extraction and grading in radiation oncology.

Federico Mastroleo, Mariana Borras-Osorio, Shiv P Patel, Sarah Peterson, Renthony Wilson, Mohammad Javad Namazi, Mi Zhou, Satomi Shiraishi, Andrew Y K Foong, David M Routman and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Technical innovations & patient support in radiation oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Federico MastroleoDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mariana Borras-OsorioDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Shiv P PatelDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Sarah PetersonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Renthony WilsonDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mohammad Javad NamaziDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mi ZhouDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Satomi ShiraishiDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Andrew Y K FoongDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
David M RoutmanDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Mark R WaddleDepartment of Radiation Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Toxicity assessment is a fundamental component of radiation therapy patient management. Natural language processing (NLP) and large language models (LLMs) are transforming clinical practice by efficiently extracting and synthesizing information from electronic health records (EHRs). This systematic review evaluates the current literature on the use of NLP and LLMs to extract toxicity data from radiation oncology records. Methods: Three databases were systematically searched on 14 March 2025 for English-language studies. Two reviewers screened the articles and extracted available data. Discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The review adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Results: We identified 246 manuscripts; after screening, five studies were included. Four studies focused on identifying toxicity terms and linking them to CTCAE terms, while severity grading or longitudinal tracking of toxicities was addressed by two studies. One study explored the summarization capabilities of LLM to convert free text or patient surveys into concise clinician notes/chatbot responses. Included studies utilized transformer models (BERT, BioBERT, Clinical Longformer) for recognition and grading tasks; rule-based systems (Apache cTAKES, IDEAL-X) used dictionaries and negation detection rules for toxicity identification. GPT-4 demonstrated zero-shot summarization and response capabilities for patient-reported outcomes. All included studies were single-center. Common challenges identified were limited generalizability, difficulty recognizing rare or negated toxicities, privacy concerns, and substantial computing requirements for fine-tuning transformer-based models. Conclusions: Current research primarily focused on three basic tasks and three categories of models. Multi-center datasets and secure, lightweight deployment methods are needed before widespread integration into routine radiation oncology practice can be considered.

Indexed as

Large language modelsRadiation oncologyToxicity

Identifiers

PMID41550701
PMCPMC12808903

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.