Paper detail

Analyzing Cancer Patients' Experiences with Embedding-based Topic Modeling and LLMs

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.

preprint2026arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.