Data transformation is a critical challenge in modern data management systems, particularly when handling complex operations over multiple data sources. However, existing approaches rely on supervised learning, which requires tremendous data labeling and training overhead. To alleviate such overhead while improving accuracy, we demonstrate a novel system DataMorpher that leverages Large Language Models (LLMs) to generate code that transforms source datasets into a user-specified target format. To generate a high-quality and token-efficient prompt, we leverage data profiling to extract features from the source datasets and historical examples of the target data. We also select a subset of features to reduce noise and costs using a ranking algorithm. These selected features are finally translated into a declarative language, which is inspired by SQL's data definition language (DDL), before being added to the prompt. We will demonstrate the workflow and effectiveness of DATAMORPHER using real-world data transformation workflows from Microsoft's GitHub benchmark, smart building, and medical data integration. (A5-min video of our demo is available at https://youtu.be/CuDm46K-_eA.)

OBJECTIVE: Data extraction from the published literature is the most laborious step in conducting living systematic reviews (LSRs). We aim to build a generalizable, automated data extraction workflow leveraging large language models (LLMs) that mimics the real-world 2-reviewer process. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A dataset of 10 trials (22 publications) from a published LSR was used, focusing on 23 variables related to trial, population, and outcomes data. The dataset was split into prompt development (n = 5) and held-out test sets (n = 17). GPT-4-turbo and Claude-3-Opus were used for data extraction. Responses from the 2 LLMs were considered concordant if they were the same for a given variable. The discordant responses from each LLM were provided to the other LLM for cross-critique. Accuracy, ie, the total number of correct responses divided by the total number of responses, was computed to assess performance. RESULTS: In the prompt development set, 110 (96%) responses were concordant, achieving an accuracy of 0.99 against the gold standard. In the test set, 342 (87%) responses were concordant. The accuracy of the concordant responses was 0.94. The accuracy of the discordant responses was 0.41 for GPT-4-turbo and 0.50 for Claude-3-Opus. Of the 49 discordant responses, 25 (51%) became concordant after cross-critique, increasing accuracy to 0.76. DISCUSSION: Concordant responses by the LLMs are likely to be accurate. In instances of discordant responses, cross-critique can further increase the accuracy. CONCLUSION: Large language models, when simulated in a collaborative, 2-reviewer workflow, can extract data with reasonable performance, enabling truly "living" systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Longitudinal data on key cancer outcomes for clinical research, such as response to treatment and disease progression, are not captured in standard cancer registry reporting. Manual extraction of such outcomes from unstructured electronic health records is a slow, resource-intensive process. Natural language processing (NLP) methods can accelerate outcome annotation, but they require substantial labeled data. Transfer learning based on language modeling, particularly using the Transformer architecture, has achieved improvements in NLP performance. However, there has been no systematic evaluation of NLP model training strategies on the extraction of cancer outcomes from unstructured text. RESULTS: We evaluated the performance of nine NLP models at the two tasks of identifying cancer response and cancer progression within imaging reports at a single academic center among patients with non-small cell lung cancer. We trained the classification models under different conditions, including training sample size, classification architecture, and language model pre-training. The training involved a labeled dataset of 14,218 imaging reports for 1112 patients with lung cancer. A subset of models was based on a pre-trained language model, DFCI-ImagingBERT, created by further pre-training a BERT-based model using an unlabeled dataset of 662,579 reports from 27,483 patients with cancer from our center. A classifier based on our DFCI-ImagingBERT, trained on more than 200 patients, achieved the best results in most experiments; however, these results were marginally better than simpler "bag of words" or convolutional neural network models. CONCLUSION: When developing AI models to extract outcomes from imaging reports for clinical cancer research, if computational resources are plentiful but labeled training data are limited, large language models can be used for zero- or few-shot learning to achieve reasonable performance. When computational resources are more limited but labeled training data are readily available, even simple machine learning architectures can achieve good performance for such tasks.