ArticleJAMIA open2026
MedSlice: fine-tuned large language models for secure clinical note sectioning.
Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Extracting sections from clinical notes is crucial for downstream analysis but is challenging due to variability in formatting and labor-intensive nature of manual sectioning. This study develops a pipeline for automated note sectioning using open-source large language models (LLMs), focusing on three sections: History of Present Illness, Interval History, and Assessment and Plan. Materials and Methods: We fine-tuned three open-source LLMs to extract sections using a curated dataset of 487 progress notes, comparing results relative to proprietary models (GPT-4o, GPT-4o mini). Internal and external validity were assessed via precision, recall, and F1 score. Results: Fine-tuned Llama 3.1 8B (F1 = 0.92) outperformed GPT-4o. On the external validity test set, performance remained high (F1 = 0.85). Discussion: While proprietary LLMs have shown promise, privacy concerns limit their utility in medicine; fine-tuned, open-source LLMs offer advantages in cost, performance, and accessibility. Conclusion: Fine-tuned, open-source LLMs can surpass proprietary models in clinical note sectioning.
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.