ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Evaluating large language models for diagnostic reasoning from unstructured clinical narratives in epilepsy.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of a large language model for clinician-facing preoperative cost-communication preparation in total knee arthroplasty.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Large language models for neurology: a mini review.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundLarge Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge. Many evaluations, however, rely on structured question-answer benchmarks, overlooking critical challenges of interpreting and reasoning about unstructured clinical narratives in real-world settings.
methodsIn this study we task eight Large Language models including two medical models (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Mixtral-8 × 7B, Qwen-72B, LlaMa2, LlaMa3, OpenBioLLM, Med42) with a core diagnostic task in epilepsy: mapping seizure description phrases-after targeted filtering and standardization-to one of seven possible seizure onset zones using likelihood estimates. We conduct quantitative and qualitative analyses, measuring correctness, confidence, calibration, and expert-evaluated reasoning quality and source citation accuracy. Through systematic prompt-engineering and ablation studies, we assess how model performance depends on variations in prompt strategy, clinical role impersonation, narrative length, and language context.
resultsMost models yield well-above chance accuracy after prompt engineering that even approaches clinician-level performance. Specifically, clinician-guided chain-of-thought reasoning leads to the most consistent improvements. Performance is further strongly modulated by clinical in-context impersonation, narrative length and language context (13.7%, 32.7% and 14.2% performance variation, respectively). However, reasoning analysis by clinical experts reveal that correct prediction can be based on hallucinated knowledge and inaccurate source citation, underscoring the need to improve interpretability of LLMs in clinical use.
conclusionsOverall, SemioLLM provides a scalable, domain-adaptable framework for evaluating LLMs in clinical disciplines where unstructured verbal descriptions encode diagnostic information. By identifying both the strengths and limitations of LLMs, our work contributes to testing the applicability of foundational AI systems for healthcare.
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.