Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41672471›Full record

ReviewJMIR AI2026

Large Language Models for Health Care Text Classification: Systematic Review.

Hajar Sakai, Sarah S Lam

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Hajar SakaiBinghamton University, Binghamton, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-8064-2655
Sarah S LamBinghamton University, Binghamton, NY, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7726-6179

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have fundamentally transformed approaches to natural language processing tasks across diverse domains. In health care, accurate and cost-efficient text classification is crucial-whether for clinical note analysis, diagnosis coding, or other related tasks-and LLMs present promising potential. Text classification has long faced multiple challenges, including the need for manual annotation during training, the handling of imbalanced data, and the development of scalable approaches. In health care, additional challenges arise, particularly the critical need to preserve patient data privacy and the complexity of medical terminology. Numerous studies have leveraged LLMs for automated health care text classification and compared their performance with traditional machine learning-based methods, which typically require embedding, annotation, and training. However, existing systematic reviews of LLMs either do not specialize in text classification or do not focus specifically on the health care domain.

objectiveThis research synthesizes and critically evaluates the current evidence in the literature on the use of LLMs for text classification in health care settings.

methodsMajor databases (eg, Google Scholar, Scopus, PubMed, ScienceDirect) and other resources were queried for papers published between 2018 and 2024, following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, resulting in 65 eligible research articles. These studies were categorized by text classification type (eg, binary classification, multilabel classification), application (eg, clinical decision support, public health and opinion analysis), methodology, type of health care text, and the metrics used for evaluation and validation.

resultsThe systematic review includes 65 research articles published between 2020 and Q3 2024, showing a significant increase in publications over time, with 28 papers published in Q1-Q3 2024 alone. Fine-tuning was the most common LLM-based approach (35 papers), followed by prompt engineering (17 papers). BERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) variants were predominantly used for multilabel classification (50%), whereas closed-source LLMs were most commonly applied to binary (44.0%) and multiclass (30.6%) classification tasks. Clinical decision support was the most frequent application (29 papers). Over 80% of studies used English-language datasets, with clinical notes being the most common text type. All studies employed accuracy-related metrics for evaluation, and the findings consistently showed that LLMs outperformed traditional machine learning approaches in health care text classification tasks.

conclusionsThis review identifies existing gaps in the literature and highlights future research directions for further investigation.

Indexed as

health carelarge language modelsnatural language processingneural networkssystematic reviewtext classification

Identifiers

PMID41672471
PMCPMC12936667

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.