Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39121174›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2024

Evaluating large language models for health-related text classification tasks with public social media data.

Yuting Guo, Anthony Ovadje, Mohammed Ali Al-Garadi, Abeed Sarker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. AI assistance in tumor multidisciplinary teams.ESMO real world data and digital oncology · 2026
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. From Conversation to Standardized Terminology: An LLM-RAG Approach for Automated Health Problem Identification in Home Healthcare.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. PH-LLM: Public Health Large Language Models for Infoveillance.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yuting GuoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States.
Anthony OvadjeDepartment of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA 30332, United States.
Mohammed Ali Al-GaradiDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37235, United States.
Abeed SarkerDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, Emory University, Atlanta, GA 30322, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7358-544X

Funding

Mining Social Media Big Data for Toxicovigilance: Studying Substance Use via Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning MethodsR01DA057599 · NIDA · EMORY UNIVERSITY · PI Abeed H Sarker · 2022 to 2026
$2.2M
NIDANIDA NIH HHS R01 DA057599NIHNIH HHS R01DA057599
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesLarge language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable success in natural language processing (NLP) tasks. This study aimed to evaluate their performances on social media-based health-related text classification tasks. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe benchmarked 1 Support Vector Machine (SVM), 3 supervised pretrained language models (PLMs), and 2 LLMs-based classifiers across 6 text classification tasks. We developed 3 approaches for leveraging LLMs: employing LLMs as zero-shot classifiers, using LLMs as data annotators, and utilizing LLMs with few-shot examples for data augmentation.

resultsAcross all tasks, the mean (SD) F1 score differences for RoBERTa, BERTweet, and SocBERT trained on human-annotated data were 0.24 (±0.10), 0.25 (±0.11), and 0.23 (±0.11), respectively, compared to those trained on the data annotated using GPT3.5, and were 0.16 (±0.07), 0.16 (±0.08), and 0.14 (±0.08) using GPT4, respectively. The GPT3.5 and GPT4 zero-shot classifiers outperformed SVMs in a single task and in 5 out of 6 tasks, respectively. When leveraging LLMs for data augmentation, the RoBERTa models trained on GPT4-augmented data demonstrated superior or comparable performance compared to those trained on human-annotated data alone. DISCUSSION: The results revealed that using LLM-annotated data only for training supervised classification models was ineffective. However, employing the LLM as a zero-shot classifier exhibited the potential to outperform traditional SVM models and achieved a higher recall than the advanced transformer-based model RoBERTa. Additionally, our results indicated that utilizing GPT3.5 for data augmentation could potentially harm model performance. In contrast, data augmentation with GPT4 demonstrated improved model performances, showcasing the potential of LLMs in reducing the need for extensive training data.

conclusionsBy leveraging the data augmentation strategy, we can harness the power of LLMs to develop smaller, more effective domain-specific NLP models. Using LLM-annotated data without human guidance for training lightweight supervised classification models is an ineffective strategy. However, LLM, as a zero-shot classifier, shows promise in excluding false negatives and potentially reducing the human effort required for data annotation.

Indexed as

Natural Language ProcessingSocial MediaSupport Vector MachineHumanslarge language modelsnatural language processingtext classification

Identifiers

PMID39121174
PMCPMC11413434

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.