From Analytics to Tumor Boards: An Evidence-Linked Multi-Agent Workflow for Oncology Feature Extraction
Artificial Intelligence
Summary
The authors studied a system called Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS) that helps organize complicated cancer reports into clear, structured information. Their system looks at many different pieces of cancer documents and pulls out important details like diagnosis and staging, using a plan made by doctors. They tested nMAS on real patient documents and found it was better at correctly finding and organizing information than another system. This shows that nMAS could help reduce the time and effort needed to review cancer records. Overall, the authors suggest that nMAS can turn messy cancer documents into useful data for doctors and researchers.
Authors
Daniel Kang, Michelle Hu, Soorya Ram Shimgekar, Shayan Vassef, Yufan Wang, Anit Kumar Sahu, Munmun De Choudhury, Vedant Das Swain, Christian Poellabauer, Li Yan Khor, Koustuv Saha, Robert Wojciechowski, Elliot Kidd, Piyum Zonooz, Navin Kumar
Abstract
Clinically relevant oncology information is distributed across heterogeneous, longitudinal documentation, creating substantial abstraction burden and requiring accurate attribution across specimens, tumors, biomarkers, and time points, while manual cancer-registry abstraction can require 27.2 minutes per case, highlighting the need for scalable methods that preserve clinical context while converting documentation into structured data. We evaluate the Nimblemind Multi-Agent System (nMAS), a configurable oncology information-extraction workflow which extracts clinically relevant structured fields from fragmented oncology documentation. The extraction task uses a clinician-informed schema of 328 attributes spanning report metadata, diagnosis, staging, and cancer-type-specific information. nMAS separates clinician-defined field specifications from model execution and combines complexity-aware extraction, report-level consolidation, and source-grounded validation. The retrospective evaluation included 230 de-identified oncology documents from 40 patients and 418 clinician-reviewed document-field pairs containing 1,126 non-empty reference values. Evaluation focused on fields identified by clinicians as present in the source documents rather than exhaustively annotating all 328 schema fields. nMAS achieved a rank-weighted value-level precision of 82.6%, recall of 87.5%, and F1 of 85.0%, compared with an F1 of 66.4% for an independently implemented UMA-style MiniMax M2.5 comparator. These findings support the feasibility of using a configurable, source-grounded extraction workflow to convert fragmented oncology documentation into reusable structured data.