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.
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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.