Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40637590›Full record

ArticleEpilepsia2025

Extracting epilepsy-related information from unstructured clinic letters using large language models.

Shichao Fang, Ben Holgate, Anthony Shek, Joel S Winston, Matthew McWilliam, Pedro F Viana, James T Teo, Mark P Richardson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Epilepsia, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Automated epilepsy and seizure type phenotyping with pre-trained language models.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

8 authors.

Shichao FangDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3556-4346
Ben HolgateDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Anthony ShekKing's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK.
Joel S WinstonDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3957-0612
Matthew McWilliamDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Pedro F VianaDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0861-8705
James T TeoDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
Mark P RichardsonDepartment of Basic & Clinical Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

Angelini PharmaEpilepsy Research Institute UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe emergence of large language models (LLMs) and the increasing prevalence of electronic health records (EHRs) present significant opportunities for advancing health care research and practice. However, research that compares and applies LLMs to extract key epilepsy-related information from unstructured medical free text is under-explored. This study fills this gap by comparing and applying different open-source LLMs and methods to extract epilepsy information from unstructured clinic letters, thereby optimizing EHRs as a resource for the benefit of epilepsy research. We also highlight some limitations of LLMs.

methodsEmploying a dataset of 280 annotated clinic letters from King's College Hospital, we explored the efficacy of open-source LLMs (Llama and Mistral series) for extracting key epilepsy-related information, including epilepsy type, seizure type, current anti-seizure medications (ASMs), and associated symptoms. The study used various extraction methods, including direct extraction, summarized extraction, and contextualized extraction, complemented by role-prompting and few-shot prompting techniques. Performance was evaluated against a gold standard dataset, and was also compared to advanced fine-tuned models and human annotations.

resultsLlama 2 13b (a 13-billion-parameter LLM developed by Meta) demonstrated superior extraction capabilities across tasks by consistently outperforming other LLMs (F1 = .80 in epilepsy-type extraction, F1 = .76 in seizure-type extraction, and F1 = .90 in current ASMs extraction). Here, F1 score is a balanced metric indicating the model's accuracy in correctly identifying relevant information without excessive false positives. The study highlights the direct extraction showing consistent high performance. Comparative analysis showed that LLMs outperformed current approaches like MedCAT (Medical Concept Annotation Tool) in extracting epilepsy-related information (.2 higher in F1). SIGNIFICANCE: The results affirm the potential of LLMs in medical information extraction relating to epilepsy, offering insights into leveraging these models for detailed and accurate data extraction from unstructured texts. The study underscores the importance of method selection in optimizing extraction performance and suggests a promising avenue for enhancing medical research and patient care through advanced natural language processing technologies.

Indexed as

Data MiningElectronic Health RecordsEpilepsyInformation Storage and RetrievalLanguageNatural Language ProcessingHumansLarge Language Modelselectronic health recordsepilepsylarge language modelsnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID40637590
PMCPMC12455391

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.