Articlenpj health systems2026
Detecting stigmatizing language in clinical notes with large language models for addiction care.
Article in npj health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Innovation to Impact: The CREATE Framework as a Blueprint for Large Language Model Adoption in Opioid Treatment Programs.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Large Language Models for Clinical Narrative Processing: Methods, Applications, and Challenges.Methods and protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Intensive care units (ICU) produce numerous progress notes that may contain stigmatizing language that perpetuate negative biases and punitive approaches against patients. Patients with substance use disorders are particularly vulnerable to stigma. This study examined the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in the identification of stigmatizing language. We annotated a dataset with over 77,000 stigmatizing and non-stigmatizing notes from the MIMIC-III database. We utilized Meta's Llama-3 8B Instruct LLM to run the following experiments for stigma detection: zero-shot; in-context learning; in-context learning with a selective retrieval; supervised fine-tuning (SFT); and keyword search. All approaches were evaluated on a held-out test set and external validation (University of Wisconsin Health System). SFT had the best performance with 97.2% accuracy, followed by in-context learning. The LLMs with in-context learning and SFT provided appropriate reasoning for false positives during human review. Both approaches identified clinical notes with stigmatizing language that were missed during annotation. SFT achieved 97.9% accuracy on external validation dataset. LLMs, particularly SFT and in-context learning, effectively identify stigmatizing language in ICU notes with high accuracy while explaining their reasoning in an asynchronous fashion and demonstrated the ability to identify novel stigmatizing language, not explicitly in training data nor existing guidelines.
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.