Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42164706›Full record

ArticleFuture internet2025

Benchmarking Large Language Models from Open and Closed Source Models to Apply Data Annotation for Free-Text Criteria in Healthcare.

Ali Nemati, Mohammad Assadi Shalmani, Qiang Lu, Jake Luo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Future internet, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

4 authors.

Ali NematiHealth Informatics Department, Zilber College of Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0287-4487
Mohammad Assadi ShalmaniHealth Informatics Department, Zilber College of Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-9629-9662
Qiang LuBeijing Key Laboratory of Petroleum Data Mining, China University of Petroleum, Beijing 102249, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8217-2305
Jake LuoHealth Informatics & Administration Department, Zilber College of Public Health, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3900-643X

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR001436 · NCATS · MEDICAL COLLEGE OF WISCONSIN · PI FREED, JULIE K · 2015 to 2025
$47.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001436
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) hold the potential to significantly enhance data annotation for free-text healthcare records. However, ensuring their accuracy and reliability is critical, especially in clinical research applications requiring the extraction of patient characteristics. This study introduces a novel evaluation framework based on Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) and the Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) technique, designed to benchmark LLMs on their annotation quality. The framework defines ten evaluation metrics across key criteria such as age, gender, BMI, disease presence, and blood markers (e.g., white blood count and platelets). Using this methodology, we assessed leading open source and commercial LLMs, achieving accuracy scores of 0.59, 1, 0.84, 0.56, and 0.92, respectively, for the specified criteria. Our work not only provides a rigorous framework for evaluating LLM capabilities in healthcare data annotation but also highlights their current performance limitations and strengths. By offering a comprehensive benchmarking approach, we aim to support responsible adoption and decision-making in healthcare applications.

Indexed as

closed source and open source modelsdecision-making in healthcareevaluation metricshealthcare data annotationhuman and LLM evaluationlarge language modelsmulti-criteria decision analysis

Identifiers

PMID42164706
PMCPMC13186227

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.