Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41905520›Full record

ArticleJournal of biomedical informatics2026

A study of large language models for patient information extraction: Model architecture, fine-tuning strategy, and multi-task instruction tuning.

Cheng Peng, Xinyu Dong, Mengxian Lyu, Daniel Paredes, Yaoyun Zhang, Yonghui Wu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of biomedical informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Cheng PengDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Xinyu DongSelfii Co., USA.
Mengxian LyuDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Daniel ParedesDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA.
Yaoyun ZhangSelfii Co., USA. Electronic address: yaoyun.zhang@selfii.com.
Yonghui WuDepartment of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA; Preston A. Wells, Jr. Center for Brain Tumor Therapy, Lillian S. Wells Department of Neurosurgery, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA. Electronic address: yonghui.wu@ufl.edu.

Funding

Semi-structured Information Retrieval in Clinical Text for Cohort IdentificationR01LM011934 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI HERSH, WILLIAM R, LIU, HONGFANG · 2014 to 2025
$5.1M
Developing and Evaluating a Machine-Learning Opioid Prediction & Risk-Stratification E-Platform (DEMONSTRATE)R01DA050676 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI LO-CIGANIC, WEI-HSUAN JENNY · 2021 to 2025
$3.2M
Artificial Intelligence and Counterfactually Actionable Responses to End HIV (AI-CARE-HIV)R01AI172875 · NIAID · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Jiang Bian, Mattia Prosperi · 2023 to 2026
$2.8M
Social determinants of health for predicting risks of HCV infection and HCV/HIV co-infectionR01DA057886 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Haesuk Park · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
Identifying pediatric asthma subtypes using novel privacy-preserving federated machine learning methodsR01HL169277 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI Jennifer Noel Fishe, Jie Xu · 2023 to 2026
$2.7M
De-implementation of inappropriate thyroid ultrasoundR37CA272473 · NCI · MAYO CLINIC ROCHESTER · PI Juan P Brito Campana · 2022 to 2026
$2.6M
Advancing Drug Repositioning for Alzheimer’s Disease using Real-world DataR56AG069880 · NIA · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BIAN, JIANG, CHEN, YONG · 2021 to 2022
$1.6M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA272473NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL169277NIAID NIH HHS R01 AI172875NIA NIH HHS R56 AG069880NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA050676NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA057886NLM NIH HHS R01 LM011934
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNatural language processing (NLP) is a key technology to extract patient information from clinical narratives to support healthcare applications. The rapid development of large language models (LLMs) has revolutionized patient information extraction in the clinical domain, yet critical strategies for effectively adopting LLMs for optimal performance need further exploration. This study examines LLMs' effectiveness in patient information extraction, focusing on LLM architectures, fine-tuning strategies, and multi-task instruction tuning techniques for developing robust and generalizable patient information extraction systems.

methodsThis study aims to explore key strategies of adopting LLMs for clinical concept and relation extraction tasks, including: (1) encoder-only or decoder-only LLMs, (2) prompt-based parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) algorithms, and (3) multi-task instruction tuning on few-shot learning performance. We benchmarked a suite of LLMs, including encoder-only LLMs (e.g., BERT, GatorTron) and decoder-only LLMs (e.g., GatorTronGPT, Llama 3.1, GatorTronLlama), across five widely used benchmarking datasets. We compared traditional full-size fine-tuning and prompt-based PEFT. We explored a multi-task instruction tuning framework that combines both tasks across four datasets to evaluate the zero-shot and few-shot learning performance using the leave-one-dataset-out strategy.

resultsFor single-task clinical CE, the two decoder-only LLMs (Llama 3.1 and GatorTronLlama) achieved the best performance, with average F1 scores of 0.8964 and 0.8981, respectively, across the five datasets, outperforming other LLMs with average F1 improvement of 0.7 ∼ 3.3%. Encoder-only LLMs with prompt-based learning outperformed those implemented using classification. For RE, the prompt-based PEFT strategy demonstrated remarkable performance, with an F1 improvement of up to 15.9% over traditional fine-tuning on all datasets. All three decoder-only LLMs outperformed encoder-only LLMs, increasing average F1 score by 1.8 to 6.6%, with GatorTronLlama achieving the best performance with an average F1 score of 0.8978. Multi-task instruction tuning showed remarkable improvements, boosting zero-shot and few-shot F1 scores by 1.1 ∼ 37.8% compared to those without multi-task fine-tuning. Notably, generative LLMs with multitask instruction tuning using only 20% of the full dataset achieved similar performance comparable to the full-size fine-tuning (<0.005 in terms of F1 score).

conclusionsOur findings support generative LLMs with PEFT as a cost-effective solution for patient information extraction. In addition, multi-task instruction tuning significantly improves the zero-shot and few-shot performance, contributing to better generalizability. This study provides practical guidelines to develop LLM-based scalable, adaptable, and high-performing patient information extraction systems.

Indexed as

Data MiningElectronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalLarge Language ModelsNatural Language ProcessingAlgorithmsHumansClinical concept extractionClinical relation extractionInstruction tuningLarge language modelPatientinformation extraction

Identifiers

PMID41905520
PMCPMC13067140

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.