ArticleJMIR formative research2025
Developing an ICD-10 Coding Assistant: Pilot Study Using RoBERTa and GPT-4 for Term Extraction and Description-Based Code Selection.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence to Improve Clinical Coding Practice in Scandinavia: Crossover Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Trial
- Development and Validation of Human-AI Collaborative Workflow in SNOMED CT Mapping of Bilingual Clinical Text.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Augmenting structured diagnoses through effective use of pre-trained large language models on clinical notes.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Optimizing GPT-5 for Operation-Procedure-Code-Extraction from Operative Reports in Meningioma Surgery: Feasibility and Comparison of Context-Enhancements.Applied clinical informatics · 2026Article
- Large language models for extraction of OPS-codes from operative reports in meningioma surgery.Acta neurochirurgica · 2025Article
- Open- and closed-source LLMs in medical and engineering education.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The International Classification of Diseases (ICD), developed by the World Health Organization, standardizes health condition coding to support health care policy, research, and billing, but artificial intelligence automation, while promising, still underperforms compared with human accuracy and lacks the explainability needed for adoption in medical settings. Objective: The potential of large language models for assisting medical coders in the ICD-10 coding was explored through the development of a computer-assisted coding system. This study aimed to augment human coding by initially identifying lead terms and using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG)-based methods for computer-assisted coding enhancement. Methods: The explainability dataset from the CodiEsp challenge (CodiEsp-X) was used, featuring 1000 Spanish clinical cases annotated with ICD-10 codes. A new dataset, CodiEsp-X-lead, was generated using GPT-4 to replace full-textual evidence annotations with lead term annotations. A Robustly Optimized BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) Pretraining Approach transformer model was fine-tuned for named entity recognition to extract lead terms. GPT-4 was subsequently employed to generate code descriptions from the extracted textual evidence. Using a RAG approach, ICD codes were assigned to the lead terms by querying a vector database of ICD code descriptions with OpenAI's text-embedding-ada-002 model. Results: The fine-tuned Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approach achieved an overall F1-score of 0.80 for ICD lead term extraction on the new CodiEsp-X-lead dataset. GPT-4-generated code descriptions reduced retrieval failures in the RAG approach by approximately 5% for both diagnoses and procedures. However, the overall explainability F1-score for the CodiEsp-X task was limited to 0.305, significantly lower than the state-of-the-art F1-score of 0.633. The diminished performance was partly due to the reliance on code descriptions, as some ICD codes lacked descriptions, and the approach did not fully align with the medical coder's workflow. Conclusions: While lead term extraction showed promising results, the subsequent RAG-based code assignment using GPT-4 and code descriptions was less effective. Future research should focus on refining the approach to more closely mimic the medical coder's workflow, potentially integrating the alphabetic index and official coding guidelines, rather than relying solely on code descriptions. This alignment may enhance system accuracy and better support medical coders in practice.
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.