Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42057875›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2026

Text mining methods for automated data extraction from health technology assessment reports of medicines using classical natural language processing and generative artificial intelligence.

Jan-Willem Versteeg, Marie L De Bruin, Maarten Schermer, Shiva Nadi Najafabadi, Modhurita Mitra, Christine Leopold, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse, Wim G Goettsch, Lourens T Bloem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 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

9 authors.

Jan-Willem VersteegDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1880-6171
Marie L De BruinDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Maarten SchermerResearch Engineering, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Shiva Nadi NajafabadiResearch Engineering, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Modhurita MitraResearch Engineering, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Christine LeopoldDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2046-8490
Aukje K Mantel-TeeuwisseDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Wim G GoettschDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Lourens T BloemDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0014-8625

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This proof of concept for utilizing automatic data extraction methods to extract health technology assessment (HTA) attributes from HTA reports of medicines aimed to explore which attributes could be extracted and how accurately, using different data extraction methods. This enables easy access to insights into HTA recommendations for policymaking and policy-related research. Materials and Methods: In total, 14 relevant attributes (eg, assessment outcome or date) were identified for extraction using two classical natural language processing (NLP) methods (rule-based and classification models) and a generative AI method (large language model (LLM)-based, i.e., Claude 3 Opus). The performance of these techniques was compared using 50 HTA reports published by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE, United Kingdom). Results: All three methods were able to extract certain attributes with high accuracy, with differences between the extraction methods and the type of attribute. The LLM-based extraction was the only method able to extract attributes on a medicine-indication combination level. The LLM-based extraction performed best (88-98% semantical accuracy for 12/14 attributes). Extraction of Outcome relative effectiveness analyses (REA) and Comparator was the most challenging and had the lowest accuracy (∼70% for the LLM-based extraction). Discussion & Conclusion: Automatic data extraction for relevant attributes from HTA reports is possible, but there is still room for improvement. LLM-based extraction outperformed the two NLP methods, but challenges regarding the use of commercial software and reproducibility remain. Future research should focus on expanding the system to other HTA organizations and further refining the LLM-based extraction.

Indexed as

Automated data extractiongenerative AIhealth technology assessmentlarge language modelsnatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID42057875
PMCPMC13120885

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.