ArticleBioengineering (Basel, Switzerland)2025
Automated Extraction of Key Entities from Non-English Mammography Reports Using Named Entity Recognition with Prompt Engineering.
Article in Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An Entity-Based Visual Analytics System Enhancing Medical Expertise Acquisition: Development and Verification Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveNamed entity recognition (NER) offers a powerful method for automatically extracting key clinical information from text, but current models often lack sufficient support for non-English languages. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study investigated a prompt-based NER approach using Google's Gemini 1.5 Pro, a large language model (LLM) with a 1.5-million-token context window. We focused on extracting important clinical entities from Turkish mammography reports, a language with limited available natural language processing (NLP) tools. Our method employed many-shot learning, incorporating 165 examples within a 26,000-token prompt derived from 75 initial reports. We tested the model on a separate set of 85 unannotated reports, concentrating on five key entities: anatomy (ANAT), impression (IMP), observation presence (OBS-P), absence (OBS-A), and uncertainty (OBS-U).
resultsOur approach achieved high accuracy, with a macro-averaged F1 score of 0.99 for relaxed match and 0.84 for exact match. In relaxed matching, the model achieved F1 scores of 0.99 for ANAT, 0.99 for IMP, 1.00 for OBS-P, 1.00 for OBS-A, and 0.99 for OBS-U. For exact match, the F1 scores were 0.88 for ANAT, 0.79 for IMP, 0.78 for OBS-P, 0.94 for OBS-A, and 0.82 for OBS-U. DISCUSSION: These results indicate that a many-shot prompt engineering approach with large language models provides an effective way to automate clinical information extraction for languages where NLP resources are less developed, and as reported in the literature, generally outperforms zero-shot, five-shot, and other few-shot methods.
conclusionThis approach has the potential to significantly improve clinical workflows and research efforts in multilingual healthcare environments.
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.