ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
The Transformative Potential of Large Language Models in Mining Electronic Health Records Data: Content Analysis.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Sagittal Alignment Correction and the Extent of Intervertebral Distraction as Factors Associated with Postoperative Radiculitis Following Anterior Lumbar Interbody Fusion.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Tailoring Discharge Summaries to Health Care Providers' Needs (Part 1 of the Framework and Implementation of AI Tools Project): User-Centered Design Approach.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- Development and Assessment of a Pipeline for Extracting Structured Data From Free-Text Medical Reports Using a Large Language Model.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Medical Feature Extraction From Clinical Examination Notes: Development and Evaluation of a Two-Phase Large Language Model Framework.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- StressSpeak: A Speech-Driven Framework for Real-Time Personalized Stress Detection and Adaptive Psychological Support.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Automated Esophageal Cancer Staging From Free-Text Radiology Reports: Large Language Model Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Electronic health records-based algorithms to screen for U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tier 1 genetic diseases: a scoping review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025Article
- Extracting Pulmonary Embolism Diagnoses From Radiology Impressions Using GPT-4o: Large Language Model Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Identifying Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Documentation in Veterans Health Administration Chiropractic Clinic Notes: Natural Language Processing Analysis.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Classification performance and reproducibility of GPT-4 omni for information extraction from veterinary electronic health records.Frontiers in veterinary science · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn this study, we evaluate the accuracy, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness of large language models in extracting and structuring information from free-text clinical reports, particularly in identifying and classifying patient comorbidities within oncology electronic health records. We specifically compare the performance of gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 and gpt-4-1106-preview models against that of specialized human evaluators.
objectiveWe specifically compare the performance of gpt-3.5-turbo-1106 and gpt-4-1106-preview models against that of specialized human evaluators.
methodsWe implemented a script using the OpenAI application programming interface to extract structured information in JavaScript object notation format from comorbidities reported in 250 personal history reports. These reports were manually reviewed in batches of 50 by 5 specialists in radiation oncology. We compared the results using metrics such as sensitivity, specificity, precision, accuracy, F-value, κ index, and the McNemar test, in addition to examining the common causes of errors in both humans and generative pretrained transformer (GPT) models.
resultsThe GPT-3.5 model exhibited slightly lower performance compared to physicians across all metrics, though the differences were not statistically significant (McNemar test, P=.79). GPT-4 demonstrated clear superiority in several key metrics (McNemar test, P<.001). Notably, it achieved a sensitivity of 96.8%, compared to 88.2% for GPT-3.5 and 88.8% for physicians. However, physicians marginally outperformed GPT-4 in precision (97.7% vs 96.8%). GPT-4 showed greater consistency, replicating the exact same results in 76% of the reports across 10 repeated analyses, compared to 59% for GPT-3.5, indicating more stable and reliable performance. Physicians were more likely to miss explicit comorbidities, while the GPT models more frequently inferred nonexplicit comorbidities, sometimes correctly, though this also resulted in more false positives.
conclusionsThis study demonstrates that, with well-designed prompts, the large language models examined can match or even surpass medical specialists in extracting information from complex clinical reports. Their superior efficiency in time and costs, along with easy integration with databases, makes them a valuable tool for large-scale data mining and real-world evidence generation.
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.