Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40605837›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2025

Supervised Natural Language Processing Classification of Violent Death Narratives: Development and Assessment of a Compact Large Language Model.

Susan T Parker

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Susan T ParkerFeinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, 750 N Lakeshore, Chicago, IL, 60611, United States, 1 2487613116.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0459-4945

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The recent availability of law enforcement and coroner or medical examiner reports for nearly every violent death in the United States expands the potential for natural language processing (NLP) research into violence. Objective: The objective of this work is to assess applications of supervised NLP to unstructured data in the National Violent Death Reporting System to predict circumstances and types of violent death. Methods: This analysis applied distilBERT, a compact large language model (LLM) with fewer parameters relative to full-scale LLMs, to unstructured narrative data to simulate the impacts of preprocessing, volume, and composition of training data on model performance, evaluated by F1-scores, precision, recall, and the false negative rate. Model performance was evaluated for bias by race, ethnicity, and sex by comparing F1-scores across subgroups. Results: A minimum training set of 1500 cases was necessary to achieve an F1-score of 0.6 and a false negative rate of 0.01-0.05 with a compact LLM. Replacement of domain-specific jargon improved model performance, while oversampling positive class cases to address class imbalance did not substantially improve F1-scores. Between racial and ethnic groups, F1-score disparities ranged from 0.2 to 0.25, and between male and female decedents, differences ranged from 0.12 to 0.2. Conclusions: Compact LLMs with sufficient training data can be applied to supervised NLP tasks with a class imbalance in the National Violent Death Reporting System. Simulations of supervised text classification across the model-fitting process of preprocessing and training compact LLM-informed NLP applications to unstructured death narrative data.

Indexed as

coroner reportsinformaticsinjury preventionlarge language modelLLMnarrativenatural language processingNLPpolice reportsimulationtext classificationviolenceviolent deathviolent injury

Identifiers

PMID40605837
PMCPMC12223685

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.