ArticleJAMIA open2025
EchoLLM: extracting echocardiogram entities with light-weight, open-source large language models.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of ChatGPT and DeepSeek in Urology Medical Education: Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Trial
- Development and Clinical Evaluation of a Large Language Model-Based System for Generating Patient-Friendly Echocardiography Reports: Two-Stage Retrospective Validation and Prospective Survey Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Leveraging natural language processing artificial intelligence for automated data extraction of ejection fraction and strain from cardiovascular imaging reports.American heart journal plus : cardiology research and practice · 2026Article
- A review for navigating the trade-offs: evaluating open-source and proprietary large language models for clinical and biomedical information extraction.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Prognostic Value of Different Iron Status Definitions in Congestive Heart Failure: A Retrospective MIMIC-IV Analysis of Risk Stratification and Mortality.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated high levels of performance in clinical information extraction compared to rule-based systems and traditional machine-learning approaches, offering scalability, contextualization, and easier deployment. However, most studies rely on proprietary models with privacy concerns and high costs, limiting accessibility. We aim to evaluate 14 publicly available open-source LLMs for extracting clinically relevant findings from free-text echocardiogram reports and examine the feasibility of their implementation in information extraction workflows. Materials and Methods: We used 14 open-source LLM models to extract clinically relevant entities from echocardiogram reports ( Results: In aggregate, Gemma2:9b-instruct had the highest precision, recall, and F1 scores at 0.973 (0.962-0.983), 0.959 (0.947-0.973), and 0.965 (0.951-0.975), respectively. In comparison, Phi3:3.8b-mini-instruct had the lowest precision score at 0.831 (0.804-0.856), while Gemma:7b-instruct had the lowest recall and F1 scores at 0.382 (0.356-0.408) and 0.392 (0.356-0.428), respectively. Discussion and Conclusion: Using LLMs for entity extraction for echocardiogram reports has the potential to support both clinical research and health-care delivery. Our work demonstrates the feasibility of using open-source models for more efficient computation and extraction.
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.