Deep reflective reasoning in interdependence constrained structured data extraction from clinical notes for digital health

Background: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for extracting information from clinical free-text documents, but their outputs are often unstructured and lack traceability, complicating validation and adoption in clinical workflows. In this work we introduce SIFTING, an LLM-based framework designed to address these shortcomings. Methods: SIFTING combines the language comprehension capabilities of LLMs with segment-level processing and structured prompts with strict output control, linking findings to the source text to enable both accurate and transparent information extraction. To demonstrate its capabilities, we applied the framework to the task of extracting tumor T-stage information from 130 lung cancer radiology reports (SIFTING-T-stage). A compact 4-bit quantized version of the open-source LLM Llama-3.3-70B (35 GB) was used in a fully self-hosted setup, providing full control over data and model. Performance was evaluated against a reference standard created by four clinical experts and compared with a range of LLMs as used in a conventional single-prompt approach, using bootstrap resampling to estimate confidence intervals. Results: SIFTING-T-stage achieved an accuracy of 90% (95% CI: 84-95) against the reference standard. We found its performance to be comparable to even the largest state-of-the-art LLMs with reasoning capabilities and to be interchangeable with clinical experts (p < 0.001), while at the same time offering full traceability through source text references. Conclusion: SIFTING enables accurate, structured, and traceable information extraction from clinical free-text documents. It ensures data control, reproducibility, and verifiable outputs that can support clinical validation and workflow integration.

Information extraction from pathology reports is essential for cancer staging, tumor registry population. Yet key data remains embedded in narrative reports, making manual extraction labor-intensive and error-prone. Traditional supervised Natural Language Processing pipelines address this through fully supervised Named Entity Recognition and Relation Extraction, but require expensive manual annotation and suffer cascading failures when upstream entities are missed. In this study, we developed a zero-shot, agentic workflow, and evaluated five open-source generative Large Language Models (LLMs) to populate 13 College of American Pathologists synoptic fields from lung resection pathology reports. We compared them against a state-of-the-art supervised GatorTron NER-RE baseline using a novel, registry-aligned evaluation framework. The baseline achieved Micro-F1of 0.960, while the best zero-shot model (GPT-OSS-20B) achieved Micro-F1 of 0.893 (recall: 0.949), accurately extracting complex relations like Pathologic Stage without task-specific training. These results suggest that open-source, zero-shot agentic LLMs show great potential as a low-cost solution for extracting lung pathology information.

Objective: To assess the accuracy and efficiency of a large language model (LLM) using two prompt strategies to extract structured data from ophthalmic diagnostic PDF reports. Methods: Twenty deidentified reports across four types (Visual Field, OCT Glaucoma Overview, OCT retinal nerve fiber layer Single Exam, and OCT Thickness Map; n = 5 each) were processed using two GPT-4o-assisted pipelines and compared with a reconciled manual ground truth. Schema-Constrained used Structured Output mode with a predefined JSON Schema; Prompt-Only used a detailed instruction prompt followed by Python conversion to JSON. Outcomes were value accuracy, formatting accuracy, and extraction time. Results: Schema-Constrained value accuracy was 100.00% for Visual Field and RNFL Single Exam, 97.45% for Glaucoma Overview, and 98.00% for Thickness Map; Prompt-Only achieved 100.00% across all four report types. Formatting accuracy was 100.00% for Schema-Constrained across all report types and 100.00% for Prompt-Only except RNFL Single Exam (90.14%). Mean extraction time was 56.51 s per report for manual review versus 5.04 s for Schema-Constrained and 4.70 s for Prompt-Only, an approximately 92% reduction. Conclusions: In this small proof-of-concept dataset, general-purpose LLM-assisted pipelines extracted structured data from ophthalmic diagnostic PDFs with high accuracy and substantially reduced processing time. Prompt-Only achieved the highest value accuracy, while Schema-Constrained produced schema-compliant output with 100% formatting accuracy. These complementary strengths support further evaluation of hybrid, validation-aware workflows for research and clinical data abstraction.