StochIKM: Automated High-Fidelity Reconstruction of Individual Patient Data from Published Kaplan-Meier Curves

Individual patient data (IPD) from clinical trials is the substrate for survival modeling, meta-analysis, and safety research, yet IPD is rarely released. Prior work has addressed only half of this gap: reconstructing Kaplan-Meier (KM) curves from published plots -- typically requiring manual digitization or human-in-the-loop correction -- while offering no mechanism for generating the adverse-event (AE) streams that constitute the other half of a patient record. We introduce KMGen, the first end-to-end framework that (i) fully automates KM curve extraction at accuracy competitive with human-guided tools, and (ii) generates synthetic per-patient AE trajectories from public trial registry records. The extraction stage is a fully automated agentic pipeline -- an agent generates code to extract each step in the KM curve -- achieving a mean Integrated Absolute Error (IAE) of 0.0151 on a 32-plot benchmark spanning clean, edge-case, and adversarial conditions. The IPD generation stage decouples patient archetype extraction from statistical sampling: an LLM distills the trial record into arm-specific statistics, adverse events, patient demographics, and risk multipliers. A mechanistic sampler generates patient events via clinical archetypes, bootstrap rank-correlation coupling to the empirical KM curve (preserving the marginal survival distribution exactly), and cycle-based AE scheduling with an induction/maintenance split. Across three held-out oncology trials spanning an order of magnitude in cohort size and 30 independent regenerations per trial, KMGen achieves mean integrated KM absolute difference $Δ_{\text{KM}}\,{\leq}\,0.051$, sex/ECOG JSD ${\leq}\,0.013$ on 5 of 6 demographic slots, and recovers ${\geq}\,71\%$ of the top-15 AEs by exact MedDRA term under a single fixed parameter set. The pipeline is released as open source at https://github.com/chufangao/kmgen.

Scientific figures often encode quantitative results that are not readily available in machine-readable form, making accurate plot digitization important for verifying and reusing published findings. Yet it remains unclear how accurately current models recover plotted values from real scientific figures, as existing benchmarks rely largely on synthetic charts or cover only a limited range of chart types. We introduce PlotGround, an automated pipeline for building plot digitization benchmarks from real scientific figures and their author-released source data. PlotGround maps figures to source tables, identifies reconstructable panels, and generates quantitative questions with source-grounded reference values. We use PlotGround to construct PlotGround-1k, a human-verified benchmark of 1,119 questions from 1,066 bioRxiv preprints. Across sixteen multimodal models, the best reaches 87.5% accuracy at a $\pm 5\%$ relative-error tolerance. Tightening the tolerance to $\pm 2\%$ lowers every model's accuracy by 11-24 percentage points, revealing a gap between approximate visual reading and precise quantitative recovery. PlotGround's paired figure-source structure lets us compare how accurately the same values are recovered from figures and from source tables. Providing source tables instead of figures raises a coding agent's accuracy from 90.0% to 97.4% while cutting cost by 72%.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses often need numerical data reported only in figures, and extracting them with interactive digitisers usually requires a person to select and calibrate each figure. We present PlotPick, an open-source tool that uses vision-language models (VLMs) to extract tabular data from batches of scientific figures, and we benchmark the kind of model it calls: nine VLMs from four providers on ChartX and six of them on PlotQA, against DePlot, a dedicated chart-to-table model, with every system scored on the same items by numeric F1 (F1 over unlabelled numbers at 5% relative tolerance). On six ChartX chart types (n=300) all nine VLMs outperform DePlot in aggregate, at 79.1-96.0% against 74.3%. The lead comes mainly from box plots, where DePlot scores 24.8% against 64.2-97.3%; pooled over the other five types, seven VLMs keep a lead of 4.7 to 11.6 points and the two weakest do not. On a subset of the PlotQA test split (n=529; 427 horizontal bar charts), scored by a lenient best-series variant of the metric, DePlot reaches 87.0%; the two strongest VLMs are level with it or slightly above it, and four fall 3.8 to 30.3 points below. DePlot was trained on PlotQA's training split. Both benchmarks use synthetic charts, and the metric ignores which series a value belongs to. The application itself was not evaluated: its figure detection, structured output, prompt and default model were not tested, and the one benchmarked model it offers, Claude Haiku 4.5, is one of the four below DePlot on PlotQA. Accuracy on biomedical figures has not been established, and every extracted value must be checked against its source figure. This version corrects version 1, which scored most PlotQA replies against category labels instead of plotted values; its claim that every VLM outperformed DePlot on both benchmarks is withdrawn. PlotPick is available at https://plotpick.streamlit.app/.