ArticleFindings of ACL. NAACL2025
Uncertainty Quantification for Clinical Outcome Predictions with (Large) Language Models.
Article in Findings of ACL. NAACL, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanism-Informed Language Modeling and Oxygenated 3D Screening Identify Berberine-Enzalutamide Synergy in Prostate Cancer Models.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Mechanistic Language Modeling and Oxygenated 3D Screening Reveal Berberine and Enzalutamide Synergy in Resistant Prostate Cancer.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2026Article
- Simple Yet Effective: An Information-Theoretic Approach to Multi-LLM Uncertainty Quantification.Proceedings of the Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 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
Abstract
To facilitate healthcare delivery, language models (LMs) have significant potential for clinical prediction tasks using electronic health records (EHRs). However, in these high-stakes applications, unreliable decisions can result in high costs due to compromised patient safety and ethical concerns, thus increasing the need for good uncertainty modeling of automated clinical predictions. To address this, we consider uncertainty quantification of LMs for EHR tasks in both white-box and black-box settings. We first quantify uncertainty in white-box models, where we have access to model parameters and output logits. We show that an effective reduction of model uncertainty can be achieved by using the proposed multi-tasking and ensemble methods in EHRs. Continuing with this idea, we extend our approach to black-box settings, including popular proprietary LMs such as GPT-4. We validate our framework using longitudinal clinical data from over 6,000 patients across ten clinical prediction tasks. Results show that ensembling methods and multi-task prediction prompts reduce uncertainty across different scenarios. These findings increase model transparency in white-box and black-box settings, thereby advancing reliable AI healthcare. Our code is publically available at https://github.com/Cyrus9721/EHR_Uncertainty.
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.