ArticleJAMIA open2024
Generalizable clinical note section identification with large language models.
Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Longitudinal symptom severity tracking in vagus nerve stimulation patients: a 2-stage LLM-based pipeline with explainable AI.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Article
- The Development Landscape of Large Language Models for Biomedical Applications.Annual review of biomedical data science · 2025Review
- Characterizing patients at higher cardiovascular risk for prescribed stimulants: Learning from health records data with predictive analytics and data mining techniques.Computers in biology and medicine · 2025Article
- AI approaches for phenotyping Alzheimer's disease and related dementias using electronic health records.Alzheimer's & dementia (New York, N. Y.)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Clinical note section identification helps locate relevant information and could be beneficial for downstream tasks such as named entity recognition. However, the traditional supervised methods suffer from transferability issues. This study proposes a new framework for using large language models (LLMs) for section identification to overcome the limitations. Materials and Methods: We framed section identification as question-answering and provided the section definitions in free-text. We evaluated multiple LLMs off-the-shelf without any training. We also fine-tune our LLMs to investigate how the size and the specificity of the fine-tuning dataset impacts model performance. Results: GPT4 achieved the highest Discussion: These results indicate that GPT4 is nearly production-ready for section identification, and seemingly contains both knowledge of note structure and the ability to follow complex instructions, and the best current open-source LLM is catching up. Conclusion: Our study shows that LLMs are promising for generalizable clinical note section identification. They have the potential to be further improved by adding section identification examples to the fine-tuning dataset.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.