ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Benchmarking large language models for de-identification of electronic health record notes.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs) and their growing application in clinical text processing have created an urgent need for reliable de-identification mechanisms. While LLMs show promise in identifying sensitive health information (SHI), their capabilities require rigorous evaluation. This study aims to conduct a comprehensive benchmarking analysis of various LLM-based, traditional rule-based and hybrid de-identification methods.
methodsOur benchmark analysis used five datasets (i2b2-2006, MIMIC-2008, i2b2-2014, i2b2-2016 and OpenDeID v1) from different countries. We developed three baseline and eight LLM-based models. The experimental setup encompassed nine different settings using various combinations of training and testing sets to assess model robustness and cross-dataset performance.
resultsIn the baseline models, the approach trained on the combined corpus of all five datasets (setting 3) significantly outperformed the other settings, achieving a strict F1 micro-average score of 0.8172. Regarding LLM-based models, the supervised fine-tuning approach using the same combined configuration (setting 9) achieved the highest performance with a strict F1 score of 0.9447. DISCUSSION: The harmonisation of corpora ensured standardised data formatting and SHI management across five diverse datasets, highlighting the necessity for uniform categorisation to enhance the reliability of de-identification results.
conclusionsOur findings indicate that while fine-tuned LLMs offer superior accuracy, the observed performance variability across heterogeneous electronic health record sources poses significant technical challenges. Real-world implementation must address these inconsistencies to overcome the ethical and technical hurdles associated with deploying LLMs for handling sensitive health data.
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.