ReviewGenomics & informatics2025
Comparative analysis of generative LLMs for labeling entities in clinical notes.
Review in Genomics & informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- BioTriplex: a full-text annotated corpus for fine-tuning language models in gene-disease relation extraction tasks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Towards scalable and cross-lingual specialist language models for oncology.Scientific reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This paper evaluates and compares different fine-tuned variations of generative large language models (LLM) in the zero-shot named entity recognition (NER) task for the clinical domain. As part of the 8th Biomedical Linked Annotation Hackathon, we examined Llama 2 and Mistral models, including base versions and those that have been fine-tuned for code, chat, and instruction-following tasks. We assess both the number of correctly identified entities and the models' ability to retrieve entities in structured formats. We used a publicly available set of clinical cases labeled with mentions of diseases, symptoms, and medical procedures for the evaluation. Results show that instruction fine-tuned models perform better than chat fine-tuned and base models in recognizing entities. It is also shown that models perform better when simple output structures are requested.
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.