ArticleJAMIA open2025
Approaches for extracting daily dosage from free-text prescription signatures in heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: a comparative study.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare various methods for extracting daily dosage information from prescription signatures (sigs) and identify the best performers. Materials and Methods: In this study, 5 daily dosage extraction methods were identified. Parsigs, RxSig, Sig2db, a large language model (LLM), and a bidirectional long short-term memory (BiLSTM) model were selected. The methods were analyzed with regard to positive predictive value (PPV), sensitivity, F1-score, cost to compute, and time to finish on a sig dataset in the context of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction. Results: The dataset consisted of 29 896 free-text sigs, which were split into training and validation sets of 70% and 30%, respectively. The BiLSTM model scored lowest with an F1-score of 0.71. The LLM GPT-4o and regular expression-based RxSig achieved the highest F1-scores with 0.98 and 0.95, respectively. The LLM outperformed RxSig in sensitivity. RxSig outperformed the LLM in PPV. Additionally, RxSig had a lower run time and no costs compared to a cost of 25 dollars. Discussion: In practical usage, it would be preferable for an algorithm to score high on PPV and F1-score, to reduce false positive assertions of daily dosage. Additionally, long running times and high costs are not scalable for larger datasets. Thus, RxSig is likely the most scalable approach. Further research is needed to investigate the generalizability of the findings. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that both the LLM and RxSig models excel in daily dose extraction from free-text sigs, with the RxSig model appearing to be the more scalable approach.
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.