ArticleFuture internet2025
Benchmarking Large Language Models from Open and Closed Source Models to Apply Data Annotation for Free-Text Criteria in Healthcare.
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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation Frameworks for Clinical Foundation Models in Specific Tasks of Unstructured Medical Text Analysis: A Scoping Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- An adaptive differential privacy framework for clinical llms with context-aware noise calibration, hierarchical budgeting, and real-time auditing.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
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
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.