ReviewCureus2026
Machine Learning-Based Data Extraction Tools in Healthcare: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. 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
- Retracted
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The healthcare industry's digital transformation has led to an unprecedented volume of multimodal data. Machine learning (ML)-based extraction tools offer promising solutions for managing this data explosion, particularly when integrated with federated database systems. If a large language model (LLM) is trained to extract data from this multimodal information and ensure high accuracy while remaining affordable, the potential to improve the data extraction process within the medical field would be limitless, reducing costs and manpower across the board. A systematic review was conducted following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, searching major databases for studies published between 2018 and 2024, supplemented by grey literature sources. Analysis focused on the performance and implementation costs of ML-based extraction tools in healthcare settings. From 1,247 initial records, 21 studies met the inclusion criteria. ML-based extraction demonstrated superior accuracy, ranging from 61% to 98%, compared to traditional methods. Implementation costs averaged between $500,000 and $2.5 million. Two primary categories of tools emerged: image-based and text-oriented. ML-based extraction tools show significant promise in healthcare data management, though successful implementation requires careful consideration of costs, security protocols, and regulatory compliance. The development of a dedicated LLM capable of efficiently extracting data from various medical sources could revolutionize healthcare by streamlining data management and reallocating resources toward patient care and research advancements.
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.