ArticleBMJ digital health & AI2025
Optimising large language models for clinical information extraction: a benchmarking study in the context of ulcerative colitis research.
Article in BMJ digital health & AI, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
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
Objective: Closed-source large language models (LLMs) like generative pre-trained transformer 4o (GPT-4o) have shown promise for clinical information extraction but are potentially limited by cost, data security concerns and inflexibility. Open-source models are an attractive alternative with various adaptation strategies with no consensus on best practices. This study aims to rigorously identify optimal adaptation strategies for open-source models and evaluate their performance relative to closed-source alternatives. Methods and Analysis: We studied three LLM adaptation strategies: chain-of-thought prompting, few-shot prompting and fine-tuning. Our target for information extraction was the Mayo Endoscopic Subscore (MES). We applied those strategies in all combinations to six open-source models (8-70 billion parameters) using an annotated set of colonoscopy procedure reports from the University of California, San Francisco (N=608) and San Francisco General Hospital (N=217). We analysed the relationship of these strategies to several performance metrics with a mixed-effects model, accounting for the variability between centres and LLMs. GPT-4o served as a closed-source oracle and provided in-depth commentary on the cost-effectiveness of these options. Results: Quantised low-rank adaptation (QLoRA) statistically improves ( Conclusion: GPT-4o is currently the most efficient LLM for MES extraction. If unavailable, QLoRA-optimised open-source models are a competitive alternative. However, results also suggest that current instruction-following LLMs including GPT-4o do not fully follow user-provided instructions, leaving room for improvement. More work is needed to achieve consistent, near-perfect performance in clinical information extraction by LLMs.
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.