Cited by 119Machine Learning in HealthcareBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic Modeling

CancerBERT: A cancer domain-specific language model for extracting breast cancer phenotypes from electronic health records

Open access
Zhou, Sicheng, Wang, Nan, Wang, Liwei, Liu, Hongfang, Zhang, Rui·2022·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

Objective: Accurate extraction of breast cancer patients’ phenotypes is important for clinical decision support and clinical research. This study developed and evaluated cancer domain pretrained CancerBERT models for extracting breast cancer phenotypes from clinical texts. We also investigated the effect of customized cancer-related vocabulary on the performance of CancerBERT models. Materials and Methods: A cancer-related corpus of breast cancer patients was extracted from the electronic health records of a local hospital. We annotated named entities in 200 pathology reports and 50 clinical notes for 8 cancer phenotypes for fine-tuning and evaluation. We kept pretraining the BlueBERT model on the cancer corpus with expanded vocabularies (using both term frequency-based and manually reviewed methods) to obtain CancerBERT models. The CancerBERT models were evaluated and compared with other baseline models on the cancer phenotype extraction task. Results: All CancerBERT models outperformed all other models on the cancer phenotyping NER task. Both CancerBERT models with customized vocabularies outperformed the CancerBERT with the original BERT vocabulary. The CancerBERT model with manually reviewed customized vocabulary achieved the best performance with macro F1 scores equal to 0.876 (95% CI, 0.873–0.879) and 0.904 (95% CI, 0.902–0.906) for exact match and lenient match, respectively. Conclusions: The CancerBERT models were developed to extract the cancer phenotypes in clinical notes and pathology reports. The results validated that using customized vocabulary may further improve the performances of domain specific BERT models in clinical NLP tasks. The CancerBERT models developed in the study would further help clinical decision support.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jamia/ocac040

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 6

  1. [7]Zhou S. Extracting phenotypes of cancer patients from electronic health records. In: 2019 IEEE international conference on healthcare informatics (ICHI); June 10, 2019; IEEE, Xi'an China; pp. 1– 2.
  2. [18]Gu Y, Tinn R, Cheng H, et al Domain-specific language model pretraining for biomedical natural language processing. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.15779, July 31, 2020. · arXiv
  3. [22]Ma W, Cui Y, Si C, Liu T, Wang S, Hu G. CharBERT: character-aware pre-trained language model. arXiv preprint arXiv:2011.01513, November 3, 2020. · arXiv
  4. [25]Klie J, Bugert M, Boullosa B, Eckart de Castilho R, Gurevych I. The inception platform: machine-assisted and knowledge-oriented interactive annotation. In: proceedings of the 27th international conference on computational linguistics: system demonstrations; August 20, 2018; Santa Fe, New Mexico; pp. 5– 9.
  5. [28]Ritter A, Clark S, Etzioni O. Named entity recognition in tweets: an experimental study. In: proceedings of the 2011 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing; July 27, 2011; Edinburgh, UK; pp. 1524– 34.
  6. [31]Pennington J, Socher R, Manning C. Glove: global vectors for word representation. In: proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP); October 25, 2014; Doha, Qatar; pp. 1532– 43.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zhou, S., Wang, N., Wang, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, R.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
Corresponding author
Zhang, Rui
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2022-03-25
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
1208-1216
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4220989182
Cited by
119
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 19 · 2025: 43 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 3
FWCI
8.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (R01AT009457)
  • University of Minnesota Clinical and Translational Science Institute
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (UL1TR002494)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
breast cancer phenotypes, named entity recognition, clinical text, electronic health records, domain-specific language models, pathology reports, clinical notes, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Language, Natural Language Processing, Phenotype, Electronic Health Records

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review