ArticleCadernos de saude publica2026
Benchmarking large language models for clinical data extraction from Portuguese medical notes in a university hospital.
Article in Cadernos de saude publica, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Extracting structured data from electronic health records (EHRs) remains a major challenge, particularly in non-English and resource-constrained healthcare systems. This study benchmarks multiple large language models (LLMs) for the automated extraction of structured clinical variables from Portuguese-language medical notes under limited computational resources. We evaluated five LLMs (GPT-4o mini, DeepSeek-V3, Mixtral-8x7B, LLaMA 8B, and Qwen-32B) against a manually curated dataset of cardiology and infectiology outpatient records. Models were deployed in quantized versions to optimize computational efficiency. Outputs were compared with human annotations using F1 score, balanced accuracy, and recall. Among the tested models, Qwen-32B achieved the highest performance in both the infectiology domain (balanced accuracy = 0.91 [0.07]) and cardiology domain (balanced accuracy = 0.89 [0.07]). Performance varied by clinical variable, with better results for frequently and consistently documented conditions (e.g., diabetes) and lower accuracy for complex or infrequent variables (e.g., tumors). Extraction time ranged from 0.9 to 24.2 minutes per patient, depending on clinical domain and model. These findings support the feasibility of applying LLM-based natural language processing tools in resource-limited, non-English healthcare settings. Future research should assess emerging high-parameter models and explore additional clinical domains.
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.