Key result
TRACER LLM framework identifies cardiac events with ~80% accuracy while drastically cutting manual processing time.
Why the study?
Evaluating cardiac events across EHRs is time- and resource-intensive, limiting cardio-oncology research on cardiac toxicity from radiotherapy.
Does the TRACER LLM framework accurately and efficiently identify cardiac events in cancer patients compared to manual physician review?
Observational (n=411)
Yes
Does the TRACER LLM framework accurately and efficiently identify cardiac events in cancer patients compared to manual physician review?
A locally deployed LLM framework can accurately extract cardiac events from EHRs in cancer patients, substantially reducing the time and resources required for cardio-oncology research.
May accelerate cardio-oncology research via automated EHR extraction; leaves open prospective validation before clinical use.
PURPOSE: Cardiac toxicity is a significant concern for cancer patients undergoing radiotherapy. The complexity of evaluating cardiac events, the time required to parse the Electronic Health Record (EHR), and the need for large datasets make cardiotoxicity studies time- and resource-intensive, limiting progress of cardio-oncology research. Large-language models (LLMs) have the potential to automatically identify cardiac events. This work aimed to develop and validate a novel LLM-based automated cardiac event identification framework using a two-institution dataset. METHODS: 411 lung and breast cancer patients from two institutions were analyzed. [Institution 1] data (n=266) were divided into a development cohort (lung, n=178) and an internal validation cohort (breast, n=88). External validation used [Institution 2]data (lung, n=145). Cardiac events were physician-adjudicated from the entire EHR patient history. Extracted EHR data comprised structured problem lists and unstructured clinical notes. We introduced the Two-phase Reasoning for Automated Cardiac Event Recognition (TRACER) framework, which combines structured term matching with LLM-based analysis of unstructured notes (including specialty-filtering, temporally aware queries, and few-shot examples). Following initial evaluation of six candidate models, the three top-performing open-source LLMs (DeepSeek-R1, Llama-3.3, Mistral-Large) were validated. Performance was evaluated against physician-adjudicated ground truth using accuracy and processing time. RESULTS: Of 411 patients, 220 had at least one cardiac event. The top three models achieved mean accuracies of 79.4%, 81.0%, and 79.3% for the development, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest accuracy on internal cohorts (83.4-85.2%), while Llama-3.3 reached 85.5% accuracy on external validation. TRACER processing time was 20-42 seconds per patient (2.3-4.8 hours total) versus 2 hours per patient for manual review (822 person-hours total). CONCLUSION: TRACER, a locally deployed LLM framework, accurately extracted cardiac events across institutions and disease sites. This approach enables scalable cardio-oncology research by substantially reducing the resources required for cardiac event identification.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cao et al. (2026) conducted an observational in lung and breast cancer (n=411). TRACER framework (LLM-based analysis) vs. manual review was evaluated on accuracy and processing time for cardiac event identification. The TRACER LLM framework identified cardiac events with mean accuracies of 79.3% to 81.0% across validation cohorts, reducing processing time from 2 hours to 20-42 seconds per patient.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: