ArticleDrug safety2026
Development and Validation of a Two-Stage NLP System Combining Rule-Based Extraction and LLM-Based Classification for Deprescribing Recommendations in Discharge Summaries.
Article in Drug safety, 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionPolypharmacy in older adults is associated with increased risks of adverse drug events and functional decline. Discharge summaries often contain deprescribing recommendations, but these are frequently overlooked due to documentation complexity.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and validate a two-stage hybrid natural language processing (NLP) system combining rule-based extraction and large language model (LLM)-based classification for automated identification of deprescribing recommendations from discharge summaries.
methodsThis retrospective cohort study included 850 discharge summaries from patients aged ≥ 65 years with hospitalisation for ≥ 48 h across six public hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Model 1 (rule-based extraction) identified discharge medications and candidate sentences containing pre-defined deprescribing keywords. Model 2 (LLM-based classification) categorised candidate sentences into five categories, from which a binary outcome (deprescribing recommendation present versus absent) was derived using a pre-specified mapping. Data were split into training (80%) and test (20%) sets. Gold standard classifications were established by independent reviews, followed by adjudication of discrepancies.
resultsModel 1 extracted 9631 discharge medications (median 11 per patient) and 1061 candidate sentences from 850 patients (median age 82.8 years). Model 2 achieved an F1 score of 0.91 and accuracy of 0.90 for the binary outcome in the test set (144 medications). Inter-rater reliability showed substantial agreement (Cohen's kappa 0.70). The most frequently identified medications recommended for deprescribing were antibiotics and opioids. The most common misclassification was incorrectly identifying actions completed during hospitalisation as post-discharge recommendations. The combined processing time averaged 12.6 seconds per discharge summary.
conclusionsA two-stage hybrid approach combining rule-based extraction and open-source LLM-based classification could identify deprescribing recommendations from discharge summaries, enabling cost-efficient, privacy-compliant local deployment.
Identifiers
42690283What 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.