ArticleJAMIA open2026
Lightweight open-source large language models versus cTAKES for information extraction from discharge summaries: tobacco smoking status test case.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To compare lightweight open-source large language models (LLMs) with cTAKES, a state-of-the-art natural language processing (NLP) system, in an information extraction task from hospitalization discharge summaries. Materials and Methods: Two readers annotated 250 randomly sampled adult discharge summaries (BJC HealthCare, 2018-2023) for tobacco smoking status as "Smoker," "Never smoker," "Unknown." Six LLMs (Llama-3 [1B-70B], gpt-oss-20B, MedGemma-27B) and cTAKES extracted smoking status from summaries. Performance was benchmarked against consensus annotations using weighted F1-score, macro F1-score, and per-class F1-scores and a noninferiority test. Results: Inter-reader agreement was excellent (κ = 0.91). LLM size (2.3-47.3 GB) and inference time (2.5-14.5 s/note) varied. gpt-oss-20B achieved non-inferior performance vs cTAKES (F1 = 0.99 vs 0.97; Discussion: The high accuracy and efficiency of gpt-oss-20B support its potential as a practical, open-source alternative to traditional NLP for clinical information extraction. Conclusion: Lightweight LLMs can be applied for use across diverse clinical information extraction tasks without the need for task-specific fine-tuning.
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.