ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
Knowledge Engineering for Medical Vocabularies Using Large Language Models.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical vocabularies are essential tools for capturing, classifying, and analyzing healthcare data. However, the creation and maintenance of these vocabularies are often labor-intensive and costly. This preliminary study evaluates the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs) to automate three key tasks in medical vocabulary management: term similarity, subsumption, and grouping. Using 1,533 cardiovascular terms from SNOMED CT, we applied GPT-4o and assessed the performance of 3 elementary tasks against OHDSI standardized vocabularies. While LLMs demonstrated high precision across tasks (0.78 for term similarity, 0.74 for term subsumption, 0.78 for term grouping), recall was notably lower (0.41 for term similarity, 0.08 for term subsumption, 0.52 for term grouping), indicating gaps in coverage. Overall, LLMs show promise for medical vocabulary tasks but require further refinement for clinical specificity and completeness. Future work should focus on enhancing recall, reducing hallucinations, and evaluating scalability across broader terminology sets.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41726449PMC12919453What 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.