Accurate segmentation of vertebral metastasis in CT is clinically important yet difficult to scale, as voxel-level annotations are scarce and both lytic and blastic lesions often resemble benign degenerative changes. We introduce a weakly supervised method trained solely on vertebra-level healthy/malignant labels, without any lesion masks. The method combines a Diffusion Autoencoder (DAE) that produces a classifier-guided healthy edit of each vertebra with pixel-wise difference maps that propose candidate lesion regions. To determine which regions truly reflect malignancy, we introduce Hide-and-Seek Attribution: each candidate is revealed in turn while all others are hidden, the edited image is projected back to the data manifold by the DAE, and a latent-space classifier quantifies the isolated malignant contribution of that component. High-scoring regions form the final lytic or blastic segmentation. On held-out radiologist annotations, we achieve strong blastic/lytic performance despite no mask supervision (F1: 0.91/0.85; Dice: 0.87/0.78), exceeding baselines (F1: 0.79/0.67; Dice: 0.74/0.55). These results show that vertebra-level labels can be transformed into reliable lesion masks, demonstrating that generative editing combined with selective occlusion supports accurate weakly supervised segmentation in CT.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to extract structured information from free-text clinical records, but prior work often focuses on single tasks, limited models, and English-language reports. We evaluated 15 open-weight LLMs on pathology and radiology reports across six use cases, colorectal liver metastases, liver tumours, neurodegenerative diseases, soft-tissue tumours, melanomas, and sarcomas, at three institutes in the Netherlands, UK, and Czech Republic. Models included general-purpose and medical-specialised LLMs of various sizes, and six prompting strategies were compared: zero-shot, one-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, self-consistency, and prompt graph. Performance was assessed using task-appropriate metrics, with consensus rank aggregation and linear mixed-effects models quantifying variance. Top-ranked models achieved macro-average scores close to inter-rater agreement across tasks. Small-to-medium general-purpose models performed comparably to large models, while tiny and specialised models performed worse. Prompt graph and few-shot prompting improved performance by ~13%. Task-specific factors, including variable complexity and annotation variability, influenced results more than model size or prompting strategy. These findings show that open-weight LLMs can extract structured data from clinical reports across diseases, languages, and institutions, offering a scalable approach for clinical data curation.

Quantitative assessment of treatment response in Advanced Prostate Cancer (APC) with bone metastases remains an unmet clinical need. Whole-Body Diffusion-Weighted MRI (WB-DWI) provides two response biomarkers: Total Diffusion Volume (TDV) and global Apparent Diffusion Coefficient (gADC). However, tracking post-treatment changes of TDV and gADC from manually delineated lesions is cumbersome and increases inter-reader variability. We developed a software to automate this process. Core technologies include: (i) a weakly-supervised Residual U-Net model generating a skeleton probability map to isolate bone; (ii) a statistical framework for WB-DWI intensity normalisation, obtaining a signal-normalised b=900s/mm^2 (b900) image; and (iii) a shallow convolutional neural network that processes outputs from (i) and (ii) to generate a mask of suspected bone lesions, characterised by higher b900 signal intensity due to restricted water diffusion. This mask is applied to the gADC map to extract TDV and gADC statistics. We tested the tool using expert-defined metastatic bone disease delineations on 66 datasets, assessed repeatability of imaging biomarkers (N=10), and compared software-based response assessment with a construct reference standard (N=118). Average dice score between manual and automated delineations was 0.6 for lesions within pelvis and spine, with an average surface distance of 2mm. Relative differences for log-transformed TDV (log-TDV) and median gADC were 8.8% and 5%, respectively. Repeatability analysis showed coefficients of variation of 4.6% for log-TDV and 3.5% for median gADC, with intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.94 or higher. The software achieved 80.5% accuracy, 84.3% sensitivity, and 85.7% specificity in assessing response to treatment. Average computation time was 90s per scan.

Electronic health records contain inconsistently structured or free-text data, requiring efficient preprocessing to enable predictive health care models. Although artificial intelligence-driven natural language processing tools show promise for automating diagnosis classification, their comparative performance and clinical reliability require systematic evaluation. The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of 4 large language models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4o, Llama 3.2, and Gemini 1.5) and BioBERT in classifying cancer diagnoses from structured and unstructured electronic health records data. We analyzed 762 unique diagnoses (326 International Classification of Diseases (ICD) code descriptions, 436free-text entries) from 3456 records of patients with cancer. Models were tested on their ability to categorize diagnoses into 14predefined categories. Two oncology experts validated classifications. BioBERT achieved the highest weighted macro F1-score for ICD codes (84.2) and matched GPT-4o in ICD code accuracy (90.8). For free-text diagnoses, GPT-4o outperformed BioBERT in weighted macro F1-score (71.8 vs 61.5) and achieved slightly higher accuracy (81.9 vs 81.6). GPT-3.5, Gemini, and Llama showed lower overall performance on both formats. Common misclassification patterns included confusion between metastasis and central nervous system tumors, as well as errors involving ambiguous or overlapping clinical terminology. Although current performance levels appear sufficient for administrative and research use, reliable clinical applications will require standardized documentation practices alongside robust human oversight for high-stakes decision-making.

Survival analysis is central to clinical research, informing patient prognoses, guiding treatment decisions, and optimising resource allocation. Accurate time-to-event predictions not only improve quality of life but also reveal risk factors that shape clinical practice. For these models to be relevant in healthcare, interpretability is critical: predictions must be traceable to patient-specific characteristics, and risk factors should be identifiable to generate actionable insights for both clinicians and researchers. Traditional survival models often fail to capture non-linear interactions, while modern deep learning approaches, though powerful, are limited by poor interpretability. We propose a Pipeline for Interpretable Survival Analysis (PISA) - a pipeline that provides multiple survival analysis models that trade off complexity and performance. Using multiple-feature, multi-objective feature engineering, PISA transforms patient characteristics and time-to-event data into multiple survival analysis models, providing valuable insights into the survival prediction task. Crucially, every model is converted into simple patient stratification flowcharts supported by Kaplan-Meier curves, whilst not compromising on performance. While PISA is model-agnostic, we illustrate its flexibility through applications of Cox regression and shallow survival trees, the latter avoiding proportional hazards assumptions. Applied to two clinical benchmark datasets, PISA produced interpretable survival models and intuitive stratification flowcharts whilst achieving state-of-the-art performances. Revisiting a prior departmental study further demonstrated its capacity to automate survival analysis workflows in real-world clinical research.

Background: Gastric neoplasm, primarily adenocarcinoma, is an aggressive cancer with high mortality, often diagnosed late, leading to complications like metastasis. Effective drug combinations are vital to address disease heterogeneity, enhance efficacy, reduce resistance, and improve patient outcomes. Methods: The RAIN method integrated Graph SAGE to propose drug combinations, using a graph model with p-value-weighted edges connecting drugs, genes, and proteins. NLP and systematic literature review (PubMed, Scopus, etc.) validated proposed drugs, followed by network meta-analysis to assess efficacy, implemented in Python. Results: Oxaliplatin, fluorouracil, and trastuzumab were identified as effective, supported by 61 studies. Fluorouracil alone had a p-value of 0.0229, improving to 0.0099 with trastuzumab, and 0.0069 for the triple combination, indicating superior efficacy. Conclusion: The RAIN method, combining AI and network meta-analysis, effectively identifies optimal drug combinations for gastric neoplasm, offering a promising strategy to enhance treatment outcomes and guide health policy.