ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2026
Benchmarking Large Language Models for MIMIC-IV Clinical Note Summarization.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2026. 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.
- Interpretable fine-tuned large language models facilitate making genetic test decisions for rare diseases.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Gastrointestinal Wireless Capsule Endoscopy: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Retrieval‑augmented large language models for depression screening and suicide risk stratification.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in healthcare and are expected to play an active role in clinical practice. However, their effectiveness for clinical note summarization remains underexplored, and systematic comparisons across different models are lacking. This study addresses this gap by benchmarking 16 generative LLMs from major providers, including OpenAI (GPT), DeepSeek, Meta (LLaMA), Google (Gemma), Mistral (Mixtral), and Alibaba (Qwen), using the MIMIC-IV-Note. Both extractive and abstractive summarization approaches were implemented and evaluated with multiple lexical and semantic metrics, including ROUGE, BLEU, METEOR, COMET, and BERTScore. In addition, processing time, cost, and deployment feasibility were assessed to provide a practical perspective for clinical adoption. The results show that Gemma-3-27B achieved the strongest overall performance in extractive summarization. For abstractive summarization, DeepSeek-R1-70B, Qwen-3-32B, and GPT-4o emerged as leading models. Their relative strengths varied depending on whether lexical overlap, semantic adequacy, or fluency was prioritized. Importantly, larger parameter sizes did not always translate into better outcomes, as smaller models such as LLaMa-3-8B and Gemma-2-9B often produced competitive results with faster runtimes and lower computational costs. This study highlights the trade-offs between performance, efficiency, and deployment context that offers practical insights into model selection for clinical note summarization and informing future integration of LLMs into healthcare workflows.
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.