Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42268852›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Comparison of local large language models for extraction of signs and symptoms data from electronic health records.

Isa Spiero, Merijn H Rijk, Matthew A Scheeres, Frans H Rutten, Geert-Jan Geersing, Tamara N Platteel, Karel G M Moons, Lotty Hooft, Johanna A A Damen, Roderick P Venekamp and 1 more

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

11 authors.

Isa SpieroDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3960-1546
Merijn H RijkDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4190-2126
Matthew A ScheeresDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Frans H RuttenDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Geert-Jan GeersingDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Tamara N PlatteelDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Karel G M MoonsDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2118-004X
Lotty HooftDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johanna A A DamenDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7401-4593
Roderick P VenekampDepartment of General Practice & Nursing Science, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Artuur M LeeuwenbergDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Economics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2892-0285

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Electronic health records (EHRs) provide a large source of data that can be used for research purposes. Extraction of information from unstructured clinical notes in EHRs can be automated by large language models (LLMs). Although LLMs are promising for this task, challenges remain in reliable application of LLMs to EHR, including the lack of development and validation for languages other than English. Here, we identified Dutch LLMs and compared their performance in a case study. We selected the MedRoBERTa.nl and RobBERT models based on local applicability, Dutch language compatibility, and model architecture. We evaluated their performance in a case study on the extraction of signs and symptoms from comprehensive Dutch primary care EHRs of patients with a lower respiratory tract infection. Using manually annotated clinical notes, models were trained as direct and prompt-based classifiers with varying amounts of training samples. Performance was expressed by precision, recall, and F1-score. The MedROBERTa.nl and RobBERT models showed good performance as direct classifiers, with a macro-averaged F1-score of 0.74 (range 0.56-0.87) and 0.69 (range 0.46-0.86) using 1600 training samples, respectively. The prompt-based classifiers performed worse with F1-scores of 0.08 (range 0.02-0.30) and 0.08 (range 0.02-0.22), respectively. In general, performance of the models was negatively affected by class imbalance and missingness of signs and symptoms. A minimum of 800 annotated training samples were required to obtain sufficient performance. The selected LLMs showed good performance as direct classifiers in extracting signs and symptoms from Dutch primary care EHRs. However, prompt-based models require performance improvement by further prompt engineering, and caution is warranted with imbalanced or partially missing EHR data.MedROBERTa.nl and RobBERT models, used as direct classifiers, can be considered for clinical research to extract information from clinical notes from Dutch primary care EHRs, potentially reducing manual annotation time and accelerating real-world research and evidence generation.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsLarge Language ModelsHumansNetherlandsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID42268852
PMCPMC13252767

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.