ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2025
Adapting Generative Large Language Models for Information Extraction from Unstructured Electronic Health Records in Residential Aged Care: A Comparative Analysis of Training Approaches.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Domain-specific versus general large language models: a review and empirical benchmark in real medical texts.Scientific reports · 2026Review
- Article
- Medical Feature Extraction From Clinical Examination Notes: Development and Evaluation of a Two-Phase Large Language Model Framework.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
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
Information extraction (IE) of unstructured electronic health records is challenging due to the semantic complexity of textual data. Generative large language models (LLMs) offer promising solutions to address this challenge. However, identifying the best training methods to adapt LLMs for IE in residential aged care settings remains underexplored. This research addresses this challenge by evaluating the effects of zero-shot and few-shot learning, both with and without parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) using Llama 3.1-8B. The study performed named entity recognition (NER) to nursing notes from Australian aged care facilities (RACFs), focusing on agitation in dementia and malnutrition risk factors. Performance evaluation includes accuracy, macro-averaged precision, recall, and F1 score. We used non-parametric statistical methods to compare if the differences were statistically significant. Results show that zero-shot and few-shot learning, whether combined with PEFT or RAG, achieve comparable performance across the clinical domains when the same prompting template is used. Few-shot learning significantly outperforms zero-shot learning when neither PEFT nor RAG is applied. Notably, PEFT significantly improves model performance in both zero-shot and few-shot learning; however, RAG significantly improves performance only in few-shot learning. After PEFT, the performance of zero-shot learning reaches a comparable level with few-shot learning. However, few-shot learning with RAG significantly outperforms zero-shot learning with RAG. We also found a similar level of performance between few-shot learning with RAG and zero-shot learning with PEFT. These findings provide valuable insights for researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders to optimize the use of generative LLMs in clinical IE. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41666-025-00190-z.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.