Overview
The system shows technical feasibility on synthetic cases with ~80% accuracy and workable latency, but limited dataset size and no prospective clinical testing reduce confidence for direct production use.
Citations0
Evidence Strength0.60
Confidence0.90
Risk Signals11
Trust Signals
Findings with numeric evidence: 4/5
Findings with evidence refs: 5/5
Results with explicit delta: 0/5
Reproducibility
Status: No open assets linked
Open source: Partial
At A Glance
Cost impact: 60%
Production readiness: 60%
Novelty: 40%
Why It Matters For Business
Automating tumour-board form filling can cut clinician paperwork and speed case preparation while keeping traceable links to source notes, but expect human review for ~20% of fields.
Who Should Care
Summary TLDR
ONCOTIMIA is a modular clinical system that converts unstructured hospital notes into structured lung cancer tumour-board forms using a hybrid RAG pipeline (vector store + relational DB) and LLMs. Evaluated on 10 synthetically generated Spanish cases across six LLMs, the best model reached 80% correct field completion and most models returned answers in ~20–21 seconds. Results show technical feasibility for reducing documentation work, but the study is limited by its small synthetic dataset and absence of prospective clinical testing.
Problem Statement
Tumour boards require manual extraction and re-entry of varied clinical data into structured forms. This is time-consuming and error-prone. The paper asks whether a modular RAG + LLM system can reliably auto-complete lung cancer tumour-board forms with acceptable accuracy and latency.
Main Contribution
Design and implementation of ONCOTIMIA: modular pipeline with landing/staging/refined data lake, Qdrant vector store and PostgreSQL relational store.
A rule-driven adaptive lung-cancer form schema with seven conditional blocks used as the target for autocompletion.
Key Findings
Best model achieved 80% correct field completion on evaluated cases.
Several large models reached similar near-80% mean accuracy.
Results
| Metric | Value | Baseline | Delta | Split / Dataset | Evidence | Evidence Ref |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Accuracy | 80% | — | — | Pixtral-large-2502-v1; mean over 10 synthetic cases | Figure 2 (A); Results sec | Results sec; Figure 2 (A) |
| Accuracy | 79.3% | — | — | GPT-OSS-120b, Qwen3-32b, Qwen3-120b; mean over 10 cases | Results sec; Figure 2 (A) | Results sec; Figure 2 (A) |
What To Try In 7 Days
Run a 10–20 case pilot using your own anonymised notes to measure field-level accuracy and latency.
Implement a hybrid store (vector DB + relational DB) and instrument retrieval links for auditability.
Compare two LLMs (one performant, one fast) and measure time-to-review savings for clinicians.
Reproducibility
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
Evaluation used 10 synthetic Spanish cases, not real patient records.
No prospective or in-situ clinical validation with tumour-board clinicians.
When Not To Use
Do not deploy as an autonomous clinical decision tool without clinician oversight.
Avoid using outputs for immediate high-stakes decisions or in emergencies.
Failure Modes
LLM hallucinations producing incorrect but plausible field values.
Missing or incomplete source documents causing empty or wrong fields.