ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025
Comparison of rule- and large language model-based phenotype extraction from clinical notes for neurofibromatosis type 1.
Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 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.
- Harmonizing Multi-Institutional Clinical Documentation Using Natural Language Processing in Neurofibromatosis Type 1.Neurology. Clinical practice · 2026Observational
- Central Precocious Puberty and Optic Pathway Glioma in Children with Neurofibromatosis 1: Associations with Tumor Location, Vision, and Treatment.The Journal of pediatrics · 2026Article
- Review
- End-to-End Pipeline Integrating Local Small Language Models and Machine Learning for Data Extraction and Stroke Outcome Prediction in Emergency Department.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Article
- Privacy-preserving augmentation of structured telehealth activity data in diabetes patients using natural language processing.Frontiers in digital health · 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
Abstract
introductionNeurofibromatosis type 1 (NF1) is a rare genetic disorder affecting multiple organ systems with significant clinical heterogeneity. Managing individuals with NF1 is challenging due to variability in disease progression and outcomes and limited early risk assessment tools.
objectiveThis study aims to develop an effective, generalizable, user-friendly clinical entity extraction pipeline for identifying NF1-related phenotypes from unstructured clinical notes to enhance research and risk-modeling efforts. We compare the benefits of rule-based natural language processing (NLP) vs large language models (LLMs) for this purpose. MATERIALS AND
methodsFour phenotype extraction pipelines (3 LLM-based vs 1 rule-based) were developed to automatically extract selected NF1-relevant phenotypes. Subject matter experts manually reviewed clinical notes, generating a gold-standard annotation dataset for evaluation. In Phase 1, notes authored by a single NF1 physician were used to guide pipeline development and refinement. In Phase 2, notes from a second NF1 physician were used to assess pipeline generalizability, followed by further refinement to accommodate differences in physician terminology.
resultsWith refinement, the rule-based model had higher distributions of F1 scores than the LLMs in both Phase 1 and Phase 2. However, the LLMs demonstrated better generalizability between physicians without refinement, showing lesser performance decreases (4.4%-5.1%) when transitioning from Phase 1 to Phase 2 without refinement, compared to an 8.8% decrease for the rule-based model.
conclusionWe highlight trade-offs between the effectiveness of rule-based NLP vs generalizability and ease of implementation of LLMs for clinical entity extraction, with implications for pipeline portability across providers and institutions.
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.