Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41921208›Full record

ArticleJMIR AI2026

Performance of Large Language Models vs Conventional Machine Learning for Predicting Clinical Outcomes With Limited Data: Comparative Study.

Erwan Bigan, Stéphane Dufour

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR AI, 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

2 authors.

Erwan BiganTinyPred, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6012-2697
Stéphane DufourTinyPred, Paris, France.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7161-0665

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMachine learning (ML) can be used to predict clinical outcomes. Training predictive models typically requires data for hundreds or thousands of patients. Lowering this requirement to a few tens of patients would enable new applications in clinical trials (eg, optimizing the design of a phase III trial by training a predictive model on phase II data and applying it to synthetic phase III patients) or in clinical decision support systems (for rare diseases or narrow indications). Large language models (LLMs) have recently been shown to outperform conventional ML algorithms for predictions on tabular data when the train dataset is small.

objectiveThis study aims to investigate the advantage of LLMs compared with conventional ML for predicting clinical outcomes by applying state-of-the-art models to recently published clinical datasets.

methodsWe compared 2 LLMs, 1 proprietary (from OpenAI) and 1 open source (from the Meta Llama family), with conventional ML classification algorithms to predict clinical outcomes using 3 recently published clinical datasets spanning distinct conditions (sepsis, gastric cancer, and acute leukemia). Datasets were chosen such that their publication date was after the LLM knowledge cutoff date to ensure that models were never exposed to these data during pretraining. Datasets were sampled to vary the training size.

resultsOn average, the 2 tested LLMs perform better than conventional ML for training sizes below 50 patients, using the receiver operating characteristic area under the curve, the F

conclusionsThese preliminary results may be further optimized. They already show the potential of LLM-based ML to enable new clinical use cases when data are available for only a few tens of patients.

Indexed as

large language modelLLMmachine learningMLsmall data

Identifiers

PMID41921208
PMCPMC13085988

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.