ReviewJournal of medical systems2026
Operationalizing Large Language Models for Clinical Research Data Extraction: Methods, Quality Control, and Governance.
Review in Journal of medical 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 API to Action: A Multi-Model Comparison of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, and Meta LLMs for Clinical Trial Data Extraction.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- A roadmap for medical large language models: a review of foundations, applications, and challenges.Military Medical Research · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
MethodsThis narrative review drew on targeted searches of PubMed/MEDLINE and arXiv (January 2020–October 2025), verification of peer-reviewed versions via ACL Anthology for selected preprints, and citation tracking of seminal literature. In this review, we trace the methodological evolution from rules to encoder-based models and LLMs, propose a multidimensional evaluation framework for real-world deployment—which includes accuracy, structural quality, human-in-the-loop effort, stability, and compliance—and develop an operational governance checklist to support auditable and reproducible implementations. Using representative tasks—diagnosis extraction, medication records, clinical trial data, and phenotype integration—we summarize the improvements and failure modes of LLM-based extraction and analyze key challenges, including domain shift, factual “hallucinations,” privacy and regulatory constraints, and cost/latency trade-offs. Finally, we outline future directions through which multimodal and cross-lingual extensions, human–machine collaborative annotation, and standardized reporting practices can advance precision medicine and sustainable, high-quality clinical research.
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.