Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40309133›Full record

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.

Dinithi Vithanage, Chao Deng, Lei Wang, Mengyang Yin, Mohammad Alkhalaf, Zhenyu Zhang, Yunshu Zhu, Ping Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dinithi VithanageSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5851-7158
Chao DengSchool of Medical, Indigenous and Health Sciences, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1147-5741
Lei WangSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0961-0441
Mengyang YinOpal Healthcare, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0212-4598
Mohammad AlkhalafSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.
Zhenyu ZhangSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1853-4978
Yunshu ZhuSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2786-0775
Ping YuSchool of Computing and Information Technology, University of Wollongong, Wollongong, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7910-9396

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Electronic health recordsGenerative large language modelsInformation extractionLlamaNatural language processing

Identifiers

PMID40309133
PMCPMC12037947

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.