ABSTRACT
Deep learning (DL) algorithms continue to develop at a rapid pace, providing researchers access to a set of tools capable of solving a wide array of biomedical challenges. While this progress is promising, it also leads to confusion regarding task-specific model choices, where deeper investigation is necessary to determine the optimal model configuration. Natural language processing (NLP) has the unique ability to accurately and efficiently capture a patient’s narrative, which can improve the operational efficiency of modern pathology laboratories through advanced computational solutions that can facilitate rapid access to and reporting of histological and molecular findings. In this study, we use pathology reports from a large academic medical system to assess the generalizability and potential real-world applicability of various deep learning-based NLP models on reports with highly specialized vocabulary and complex reporting structures. The performance of each NLP model examined was compared across four distinct tasks: 1) current procedural terminology (CPT) code classification, 2) pathologist classification, 3) report sign-out time regression, and 4) report text generation, under the hypothesis that models initialized on domain-relevant medical text would perform better than models not attuned to this prior knowledge. Our study highlights that the performance of deep learning-based NLP models can vary meaningfully across pathology-related tasks. Models pretrained on medical data outperform other models where medical domain knowledge is crucial, e.g., current procedural terminology (CPT) code classification. However, where interpretation is more subjective (i.e., teasing apart pathologist-specific lexicon and variable sign-out times), models with medical pretraining do not consistently outperform the other approaches. Instead, fine-tuning models pretrained on general or unrelated text sources achieved comparable or better results. Overall, our findings underscore the importance of considering the nature of the task at hand when selecting a pretraining strategy for NLP models in pathology. The optimal approach may vary depending on the specific requirements and nuances of the task, and related text sources can offer valuable insights and improve performance in certain cases, contradicting established notions about domain adaptation. This research contributes to our understanding of pretraining strategies for large language models and further informs the development and deployment of these models in pathology-related applications.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
JL is funded under NIH subawards P20GM130454 and P20GM104416.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Human Research Protection Program IRB of Dartmouth Health gave ethical approval for this work.
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
Access to manuscript data is limited due to patient privacy concerns. All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors.