ReviewJMIR AI2026
Large Language Models for Health Care Text Classification: Systematic Review.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploratory Implementation and Feasibility Report of CLASS (Clinical LLM Abstraction & Structuring System), A Large Language Model Pipeline for Extracting Unstructured Data From Clinical Notes.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Fine-tuning and evaluating large language models for patient safety tasks: classification of contributing factors in incident reports.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Defining and Assessing Empathic Communication in Patient Portal Secure Messages: Adapted Coding Framework Development Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Gut Instincts, Machine Decisions: Evaluating AI Accuracy in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Disorders of Gut-Brain Interaction.Neurogastroenterology and motility · 2026Article
- Is a Win-Win possible? Achieving pareto-optimal privacy-utility balance in fine-tuned genome language model embeddings against embedding reconstruction attacks.Bioinformatics (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Extracting and Classifying Drug Discontinuations From Estonian Electronic Health Records: Development and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Large language models for predicting postoperative complications: benefits, potential, and limitations of clinical use.Korean journal of anesthesiology · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language models for diagnostic reasoning from unstructured clinical narratives in epilepsy.Communications medicine · 2026Article
- Large language models for zero-shot procedure extraction in orthopedic surgery: a comparative evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Detecting temporal clinical change in sequential chest radiography reports: a multi-model and multi-prompt evaluation of large language models.Frontiers in digital health · 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
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
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.