Overview
Production Readiness
0.6
Novelty Score
0.4
Cost Impact Score
0.6
Citation Count
0
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.
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.
An evaluation of six LLMs (via AWS Bedrock) on 10 synthetic Spanish lung-cancer cases measuring field-level accuracy and end-to-end latency.
Key Findings
Best model achieved 80% correct field completion on evaluated cases.
Several large models reached similar near-80% mean accuracy.
Most models returned answers in ~20–21 seconds; one model was much slower.
Performance measured on a small synthetic dataset of 10 cases.
System links each generated field back to source text via RAG for traceability.
Results
Accuracy
Accuracy
Accuracy
End-to-end latency
End-to-end latency
Who Should Care
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
Open Source Status
- partial
Risks & Boundaries
Limitations
- Evaluation used 10 synthetic Spanish cases, not real patient records.
- No prospective or in-situ clinical validation with tumour-board clinicians.
- Limited error analysis by clinical category; unknown failure rates per field type.
- Model selection limited to AWS Bedrock offerings and a few open-weight models.
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.
- Do not assume equal performance on different hospitals, languages, or document formats.
Failure Modes
- LLM hallucinations producing incorrect but plausible field values.
- Missing or incomplete source documents causing empty or wrong fields.
- High latency from certain models making the tool impractical for fast workflows.
- Schema-mapping errors for uncommon or poorly represented clinical concepts.
Core Entities
Models
- GPT-OSS-20b
- GPT-OSS-120b
- Mistral-large-2402-v1
- Pixtral-large-2502-v1
- Qwen3-32b
- Qwen3-next-80b
Metrics
- Accuracy
- end-to-end latency (seconds)
Datasets
- Synthetic Spanish lung cancer histories (N=10)