VERGE: Verification-Enhanced Refinement for Grounded Extraction of Early-Onset Colorectal Cancer Symptoms in Clinical Notes
Organizations: Department of Computer Science, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA · Peter O’Donnell Jr. School of Public Health, UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, TX, USA
Abstract
Early-onset colorectal cancer is increasing among younger adults, yet red-flag symptoms in this age group have no evidence-based guidelines for follow-up testing, and structured encounter data do not capture the detail needed to support early detection and inform follow-up, including symptom duration, context, and fam- ily history, an established colorectal-cancer risk factor. This study aimed to develop and evaluate an automated method for extracting six red-flag symptoms and family-history risk status from free-text clinical notes. We developed VERGE, an agentic workflow in which an initial label and evidence are proposed using retrieval-augmented generation, then passed through a bounded verification- refinement cycle that checks textual grounding and clinical validity, corrects and rechecks a claim until resolved or a limit is reached, and escalates unresolved claims for human review. VERGE was evaluated on 4,033 clinician-labeled note-finding pairs against a single-agent baseline, a rule-based clinical language-processing baseline, and an alternative underlying language model. Compared with the single-agent baseline, VERGE reduced false positive find- ings, improving precision from 0.764 to 0.849 and MCC from 0.681 to 0.730, a balanced gain across the precision-recall trade-off, and resolved most flagged errors autonomously, with human review required for only 1.5 percent of claims. These results indicate that a bounded, verification-based workflow can reduce unnecessary positive findings without sacrificing the ability to detect true ones. This approach offers a path toward more reliable and trustworthy clinical language-processing tools to support colorectal cancer risk assessment in younger patients.
Figures & tables
| Symptom | Samples | Pos. | Neg. | Prev. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdominal pain | 576 | 243 | 333 | 42.2% |
| Rectal bleeding | 575 | 108 | 467 | 18.8% |
| Rectal pain | 575 | 77 | 498 | 13.4% |
| Diarrhea | 575 | 110 | 465 | 19.1% |
| Constipation | 577 | 79 | 498 | 13.7% |
| Weight loss | 577 | 67 | 510 | 11.6% |
| Configuration | Prec. | Rec. | MCC | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extractor Development | ||||
| Note-only | 0.706 | 0.715 | 0.711 | 0.649 |
| ROS | 0.625 | 0.755 | 0.684 | 0.614 |
| ROS + UMLS | 0.620 | 0.758 | 0.682 | 0.611 |
| RAG | 0.748 | 0.672 | 0.708 | 0.652 |
| Single-Agent |
| Extractor | VERGE | Changes | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finding | P. | R. | P. | R. | GS | GS | ||
| Abdominal pain | 0.79 | 0.65 | 0.71 | 0.84 | 0.65 | 0.73 | 21 | 9 |
| Rectal bleeding | 0.80 | 0.75 | 0.78 | 0.94 | 0.79 | 0.86 | 20 | 1 |
| Rectal pain | 0.47 | 0.78 | 0.59 | 0.65 | 0.78 | 0.71 | 43 | 8 |
| Diarrhea | 0.94 | 0.76 | 0.84 | 0.91 | 0.75 | 0.82 | 2 | 7 |
| Constipation | 0.91 | 0.76 | 0.83 | 0.93 | 0.72 | 0.81 | 4 | 5 |
| Stage | Outcome | N | Total | % |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Verifier | Verified | 3666 | 4033 | 90.9 |
| Refine | 367 | 4033 | 9.1 | |
| Refinement | Resolved with label flipped | 80 | 367 | 21.8 |
| Resolved with label unchanged | 226 | 367 | 61.6 | |
| Five-round unresolved | 59 | 367 | 16.1 | |
| Refinement error | 2 | 367 | 0.5 |
| Layer | Verification issue | N | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Layer 1 Extrinsic (grounding) | Weak grounding | 46 | 12.5 |
| Missing evidence | 13 | 3.5 | |
| Ungrounded evidence | 8 | 2.2 | |
| Layer 2 Intrinsic (clinical validity) | Any clinical-validity failure | 222 | 60.5 |
| CRC-specificity failure | 7 | 1.9 | |
| Family-relation failure | 3 | 0.8 |
| Metric | System | Estimate | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Precision | Extractor | 0.764 (0.733–0.794) | (0.057–0.112) |
| VERGE | 0.849 (0.822–0.875) | ||
| Recall | Extractor | 0.705 (0.659–0.752) | ( –0.013) |
| VERGE | 0.702 (0.656–0.752) | ||
| Extractor | 0.733 (0.703–0.764) | (0.020–0.051) | |
| VERGE | 0.769 (0.739–0.798) |
Clinical Information Extraction
Clinical Information Extraction turns clinical notes, reports, and patient narratives into structured, searchable facts and relations.
See all 106 papers