ArticleJMIR medical informatics2026
Optimizing Clinical Temporal Relation Extraction With Large Language Models: Comparative Analysis.
Article in JMIR medical 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Clinical temporal relation extraction (CTRE) is essential for reconstructing patient timelines from unstructured electronic health records (EHRs). However, the linguistic complexity of clinical notes and the high cost of expert annotation impede the development of large-scale training corpora. While large language models (LLMs) have transformed general natural language processing, their application to CTRE remains underexplored. Objective: This study aimed to determine the optimal adaptation strategy for CTRE by conducting a controlled comparative benchmarking of LLM architectures and fine-tuning methodologies in both data-rich and limited-data regimes. Methods: We evaluated 4 LLMs representing 2 distinct architectures-transformer encoders (GatorTron [University of Florida and NVIDIA]) and transformer decoders (LLaMA 3.1-8B [Meta AI] and MeLLaMA-13B [Yale University and University of Florida]). We compared four adaptation strategies: (1) standard fine-tuning, (2) hard-prompting, (3) soft-prompting, and (4) low-rank adaptation (LoRA). Experiments were conducted on the 2012 i2b2 CTRE benchmark in both full-supervision and 1-shot scenarios. Results: Recent LLMs combined with appropriate adaptation strategies achieved strong performance for CTRE on the 2012 i2b2 benchmark. In the data-rich setting, the best-performing configuration was LLaMA3.1-8B with quantized low-rank adaptation (QLoRA) applied to the query and value projection layers, achieving a micro- Conclusions: This study provides a controlled benchmark for adapting LLMs to CTRE under different data and parameter constraints. Our findings suggest that QLoRA targeting only the query and value projection layers is a computationally efficient and competitive adaptation strategy. Decoder-based LLMs generally achieved stronger performance under QLoRA-based adaptation, whereas domain-specific encoder-based models showed advantages under the most resource-constrained soft-prompting setting. These results highlight the importance of selecting adaptation strategies according to both model architecture and available computational resources.
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.