ArticleJMIR nursing2026
AI-Based Structured Information Extraction From Synthetic Nursing Handover Transcripts: Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Models.
Article in JMIR nursing, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Clinical handover is the process during which responsibility and accountability for care are transferred between clinicians. AI has the potential to improve the reliability and completeness of clinical handover by helping clinicians detect predefined content areas that have been communicated, identify explicit information gaps, and prompt clarification before responsibility is transferred. Objective: This study evaluated the performance of several large language models and prompt optimization strategies for structured information extraction of synthetic nursing handover transcripts. Methods: Two registered nurses independently annotated a dataset of 203 synthetic handover transcripts to produce consensus labels for information extraction tasks. Tasks included (1) labeling spans of text into SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation) categories, (2) content detection to determine if specific pieces of information were communicated, and (3) labeling spans of text that communicated information using uncertain terms that included a subtask for identifying unknown facts. Baseline and Genetic-Pareto (GEPA)-optimized prompts were compared for the GPT-5.2, GPT-5-nano, and MedGemma 27B large language models. Additionally, the LangExtract framework was evaluated for span-extraction tasks. Results: The GPT-5.2-optimized model achieved a micro Conclusions: Prompt optimization improved matched-model point estimates, with the highest performance observed for predefined content detection and SBAR span extraction. Broad uncertainty extraction remained less accurate than the narrower unknown-fact task. These technical results do not establish clinical effectiveness, safety, or readiness for real-time use. Validation using authentic nursing handover communication and prospective evaluation in clinical workflows are required before clinical application.
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.