Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42436814›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2026

Development of a benchmarking dataset for symptom detection using large language models.

Joshua Davis, Brigitte N Durieux, Chloe Van Dongen, Kate Sciacca, Juan Manuel Gutierrez, Charlotta Lindvall

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Joshua DavisDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7324-6018
Brigitte N DurieuxDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6036-1420
Chloe Van DongenDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.
Kate SciaccaDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.
Juan Manuel GutierrezDepartment of Informatics & Analytics, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.
Charlotta LindvallDepartment of Supportive Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA, 02215, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To develop a pipeline for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on the task of capturing symptoms from clinical encounters. Materials and Methods: We created a gold standard dataset of symptom annotations from simulated doctor-patient encounter excerpts (264 encounters; 16 symptoms; double-coded and adjudicated). Nine different LLMs from 4 vendors (OpenAI, Meta, DeepSeek, Moonshot AI) were used as examples to test our evaluation pipeline; outputs were assessed for correct structure and symptom information. Results: Of 3085 excerpts, 2087 (68%) contained symptoms. Pain, cough, and shortness of breath were most common; LLMs achieved F1 scores ranging 0.66-0.88 for these symptoms with minimal prompt engineering. Of tested models, GPT-4.1 demonstrated the best overall performance. Discussion: Our evaluation pipeline and benchmarking dataset are publicly available and applicable to various LLMs, including open-source models. Conclusion: This work supports the development and optimization of models that seek to improve patient symptom understanding.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecomputing methodologiesnatural language processingsigns and symptomssymptom assessment

Identifiers

PMID42436814
PMCPMC13354605

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.