Papers › Analyzing Cancer Patients' Experiences with Embedding-based Topic Modeling and LLMs
Analyzing Cancer Patients' Experiences with Embedding-based Topic Modeling and LLMs
Teodor-Călin Ionescu, Lifeng Han, Jan Heijdra Suasnabar, Anne Stiggelbout, Suzan Verberne
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
This study investigates the use of neural topic modeling and LLMs to uncover meaningful themes from patient storytelling data, to offer insights that could contribute to more patient-oriented healthcare practices. We analyze a collection of transcribed interviews with cancer patients (132,722 words in 13 interviews). We first evaluate BERTopic and Top2Vec for individual interview summarization by using similar preprocessing, chunking, and clustering configurations to ensure a fair comparison on Keyword Extraction. LLMs (GPT4) are then used for the next step topic labeling. Their outputs for a single interview (I0) are rated through a small-scale human evaluation, focusing on {coherence}, {clarity}, and {relevance}. Based on the preliminary results and evaluation, BERTopic shows stronger performance and is selected for further experimentation using three {clinically oriented embedding} models. We then analyzed the full interview collection with the best model setting. Results show that domain-specific embeddings improved topic \textit{precision} and \textit{interpretability}, with BioClinicalBERT producing the most consistent results across transcripts. The global analysis of the full dataset of 13 interviews, using the BioClinicalBERT embedding model, reveals the most dominant topics throughout all 13 interviews, namely ``Coordination and Communication in Cancer Care Management" and ``Patient Decision-Making in Cancer Treatment Journey''. Although the interviews are machine translations from Dutch to English, and clinical professionals are not involved in this evaluation, the findings suggest that neural topic modeling, particularly BERTopic, can help provide useful feedback to clinicians from patient interviews. This pipeline could support more efficient document navigation and strengthen the role of patients' voices in healthcare workflows.
In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2601.12154")
Code
Syntology Ran 0 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 3 have no recorded run.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 3 samples from 1 repository, 0 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
3 samples harvested; 0 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 3 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 3 of the 3 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from 4dpicture/TM4health. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
5be1e77cf9455131 · report
31c4c5deccef16a5 · report
df6ce1e38e9b7828 · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2601.12154, was issued in January 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections