ArticleJMIR medical informatics2025
Medical Feature Extraction From Clinical Examination Notes: Development and Evaluation of a Two-Phase Large Language Model Framework.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Gender and other diversity-related factors in psychiatric hospital care: protocol for the participatory mixed-methods PSY-DIVER study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
- Beyond accuracy: evaluating the reliability of large language models for medical assessment.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Article
- Medical Feature Extraction From Clinical Examination Notes: Development and Evaluation of a Two-Phase Large Language Model Framework.JMIR medical informatics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical feature extraction from clinical text is challenging because of limited data availability, variability in medical terminology, and the critical need for trustworthy outputs. Large language models (LLMs) offer promising capabilities but face critical challenges with hallucination.
objectiveThis study aims to develop a robust framework for medical feature extraction that enhances accuracy by minimizing the risk of hallucination, even with limited training data.
methodsWe developed a two-phase training approach. Phase 1 used instructing fine-tuning to teach feature extraction. Phase 2 introduced confidence-regularization fine-tuning with loss functions penalizing overconfident incorrect predictions, which were captured using bidirectional matching targeting hallucination and missing features. The model was trained using the full data of 700 patient notes and on few-shot 100 patient notes. We evaluated the framework on the United States Medical Licensing Examination Step-2 Clinical Skills dataset, testing on a public split of 200 patient notes and a private split of 1839 patient notes. Performance was assessed using precision, recall, and F
resultsThe framework achieved an F
conclusionsOur two-phase LLM framework successfully addresses critical challenges in automated medical feature extraction, achieving state-of-the-art performance while reducing hallucination and missing features. The framework's ability to achieve high performance with minimal training data (F
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.