Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40632815›Full record

ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025

Language Models for Multilabel Document Classification of Surgical Concepts in Exploratory Laparotomy Operative Notes: Algorithm Development Study.

Jeremy A Balch, Sasank S Desaraju, Victoria J Nolan, Divya Vellanki, Timothy R Buchanan, Lindsey M Brinkley, Yordan Penev, Ahmet Bilgili, Aashay Patel, Corinne E Chatham and 7 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
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

17 authors.

Jeremy A BalchDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-1826-7884
Sasank S DesarajuUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-0880-5122
Victoria J NolanDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6069-963X
Divya VellankiUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3151-9804
Timothy R BuchananUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0009-0002-7815-7967
Lindsey M BrinkleyUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0390-5310
Yordan PenevUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8520-9417
Ahmet BilgiliUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5449-2114
Aashay PatelUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3301-8066
Corinne E ChathamUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0009-0003-3184-2278
David M VanderbiltUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8468-5833
Rayon UddinUniversity of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0009-0008-3010-6048
Azra BihoracIntelligent Clinical Care Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5745-2863
Philip EfronDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3931-650X
Tyler J LoftusDepartment of Surgery, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5354-443X
Protiva RahmanDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, University of Florida College of Medicine, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0000-8558
Benjamin ShickelIntelligent Clinical Care Center, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-5304-7027

Funding

Integrating data, algorithms and clinical reasoning for surgical risk assessmentR01GM110240 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIHORAC, AZRA, RASHIDI, PARISA · 2016 to 2025
$5.1M
Molecular Biology in Burns and TraumaT32GM008721 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Philip A Efron · 1999 to 2026
$5.0M
Aligning Patient Acuity with Resource Intensity after Major SurgeryR01GM149657 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Tyler J Loftus · 2023 to 2026
$1.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM110240NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM149657NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM008721
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Operative notes are frequently mined for surgical concepts in clinical care, research, quality improvement, and billing, often requiring hours of manual extraction. These notes are typically analyzed at the document level to determine the presence or absence of specific procedures or findings (eg, whether a hand-sewn anastomosis was performed or contamination occurred). Extracting several binary classification labels simultaneously is a multilabel classification problem. Traditional natural language processing approaches-bag-of-words (BoW) and term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf) with linear classifiers-have been used previously for this task but are now being augmented or replaced by large language models (LLMs). However, few studies have examined their utility in surgery. Objective: We developed and evaluated LLMs for the purpose of expediting data extraction from surgical notes. Methods: A total of 388 exploratory laparotomy notes from a single institution were annotated for 21 concepts related to intraoperative findings, intraoperative techniques, and closure techniques. Annotation consistency was measured using the Cohen κ statistic. Data were preprocessed to include only the description of the procedure. We compared the evolution of document classification technologies from BoW and tf-idf to encoder-only (Clinical-Longformer) and decoder-only (Llama 3) transformer models. Multilabel classification performance was evaluated with 5-fold cross-validation with F1-score and hamming loss (HL). We experimented with and without context. Errors were assessed by manual review. Code and implementation instructions may be found on GitHub. Results: The prevalence of labels ranged from 0.05 (colostomy, ileostomy, active bleed from named vessel) to 0.50 (running fascial closure). Llama 3.3 was the overall best-performing model (micro F1-score 0.88, 5-fold range: 0.88-0.89; HL 0.11, 5-fold range: 0.11-0.12). The BoW model (micro F1-score 0.68, 5-fold range: 0.64-0.71; HL 0.14, 5-fold range: 0.13-0.16) and Clinical-Longformer (micro F1-score 0.73, 5-fold range: 0.70-0.74; HL 0.11, 5-fold range: 0.10-0.12) had overall similar performance, with tf-idf models trailing (micro F1-score 0.57, 5-fold range: 0.55-0.59; HL 0.27, 5-fold range: 0.25-0.29). F1-scores varied across concepts in the Llama model, ranging from 0.30 (5-fold range: 0.23-0.39) for class III contamination to 0.92 (5-fold range: 0.98-0.84) for bowel resection. Context enhanced Llama's performance, adding an average of 0.16 improvement to the F1-scores. Error analysis demonstrated semantic nuances and edge cases within operative notes, particularly when patients had references to prior operations in their operative notes or simultaneous operations with other surgical services. Conclusions: Off-the-shelf autoregressive LLMs outperformed fined-tuned, encoder-only transformers and traditional natural language processing techniques in classifying operative notes. Multilabel classification with LLMs may streamline retrospective reviews in surgery, though further refinements are required prior to reliable use in research and quality improvement.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsElectronic Health RecordsLaparotomyNatural Language ProcessingHumanschart reviewexploratory laparotomygeneral surgerygenerative large language modelsnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID40632815
PMCPMC12266303

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.