ArticleGastro hep advances2025
Large Language Models Outperform Traditional Natural Language Processing Methods in Extracting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease.
Article in Gastro hep advances, 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.
- Development of a benchmarking dataset for symptom detection using large language models.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in inflammatory bowel disease: bridging innovation, implementation and impact.Nature reviews. Gastroenterology & hepatology · 2026Review
- Extraction of Human Phenotype Ontology (HPO) Concepts from Clinical Notes Utilizing Large Language Models (LLM) with Model Context Protocol (MCP).medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Graph augmented transformers improve chemotherapy toxicity symptom extraction from clinical notes.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Generative AI-augmented transcriptomic and microbiome analysis across inflammatory and fibrotic disease states in Crohn's disease.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Development and Validation of a Large Language Model Case Identification Strategy for Eosinophilic Esophagitis.Gastro hep advances · 2026Article
- Neuro-symbolic AI for auditable cognitive information extraction from medical reports.Communications medicine · 2025Article
- Large language models for extracting histopathologic diagnoses of colorectal cancer and dysplasia from electronic health records.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2025Article
- DeepGut: A collaborative multimodal large language model framework for digestive disease assisted diagnosis and treatment.World journal of gastroenterology · 2025Observational
- Utilizing large language models for gastroenterology research: a conceptual framework.Therapeutic advances in gastroenterology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background and Aims: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in assessing disease activity and treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, manual extraction of these PROs from the free-text of clinical notes is burdensome. We aimed to improve data curation from free-text information in the electronic health record, making it more available for research and quality improvement. This study aimed to compare traditional natural language processing (tNLP) and large language models (LLMs) in extracting 3 IBD PROs (abdominal pain, diarrhea, fecal blood) from clinical notes across 2 institutions. Methods: Clinic notes were annotated for each PRO using preset protocols. Models were developed and internally tested at the University of California, San Francisco, and then externally validated at Stanford University. We compared tNLP and LLM-based models on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value. In addition, we conducted fairness and error assessments. Results: Interrater reliability between annotators was >90%. On the University of California, San Francisco test set (n = 50), the top-performing tNLP models showcased accuracies of 92% (abdominal pain), 82% (diarrhea) and 80% (fecal blood), comparable to GPT-4, which was 96%, 88%, and 90% accurate, respectively. On external validation at Stanford (n = 250), tNLP models failed to generalize (61%-62% accuracy) while GPT-4 maintained accuracies >90%. Pathways Language Model-2 and Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4 showed similar performance. No biases were detected based on demographics or diagnosis. Conclusion: LLMs are accurate and generalizable methods for extracting PROs. They maintain excellent accuracy across institutions, despite heterogeneity in note templates and authors. Widespread adoption of such tools has the potential to enhance IBD research and patient care.
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.