Narrative Feature or Structured Feature? A Study of Large Language Models to Identify Cancer Patients at Risk of Heart Failure

Ziyi Chen, Mengyuan Zhang, Mustafa Mohammed Ahmed, Yi Guo, Thomas J. George, Jiang Bian, Yonghui Wu · Mar 18, 2024 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Cancer treatments are known to introduce cardiotoxicity, negatively impacting outcomes and survivorship. Identifying cancer patients at risk of heart failure (HF) is critical to improving cancer treatment outcomes and safety. This study examined machine learning (ML) models to identify cancer patients at risk of HF using electronic health records (EHRs), including traditional ML, Time-Aware long short-term memory (T-LSTM), and large language models (LLMs) using novel narrative features derived from the structured medical codes. We identified a cancer cohort of 12,806 patients from the University of Florida Health, diagnosed with lung, breast, and colorectal cancers, among which 1,602 individuals developed HF after cancer. The LLM, GatorTron-3.9B, achieved the best F1 scores, outperforming the traditional support vector machines by 39%, the T-LSTM deep learning model by 7%, and a widely used transformer model, BERT, by 5.6%. The analysis shows that the proposed narrative features remarkably increased feature density and improved performance.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 35%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.