ArticleJMIR AI2026
Enhancing Large Language Models for Identifying and Prioritizing Important Medical Jargons From Electronic Health Record Notes Using Data Augmentation: Comparative Study.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Do we need AI guardians to protect us from health information overload?NPJ digital medicine · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOpenNotes allows patients to access their electronic health record (EHR) notes through online patient portals. However, EHR notes contain abundant medical jargon, which can be difficult for patients to comprehend. One way to improve comprehension is by reducing information overload and helping patients focus on the medical terms that matter most to them.
objectiveThis study aimed to evaluate both closed-source and open-source large language models (LLMs) for extracting and prioritizing medical jargon from EHR notes relevant to individual patients, leveraging prompting techniques, fine-tuning, and data augmentation.
methodsWe evaluated the performance of closed-source and open-source LLMs on a dataset of 90 expert-annotated EHR notes. We tested various combinations of settings, including (1) general and structured prompts, (2) zero-shot and few-shot prompting, (3) fine-tuning, and (4) data augmentation. To enhance the extraction and prioritization capabilities of open-source models in low-resource settings, we applied data augmentation using GPT-4o and integrated a ranking technique to refine the training process. Additionally, to measure the impact of dataset size, we fine-tuned the models by incrementally increasing the size of the augmented dataset from 10 to 9995 and tested their performance. The effectiveness of the models was assessed using 10-fold cross-validation, providing a comprehensive evaluation across various settings. We report the F
resultsOur results show that open-source models achieved the highest performance, particularly when using fine-tuning with a gold-standard dataset. Under Jaccard Index-based string matching, DeepSeek 8B set the benchmarks with an F
conclusionsThe evaluation of both closed-source and open-source LLMs highlighted the effectiveness of prompting strategies, fine-tuning, and data augmentation in enhancing model performance in low-resource scenarios.
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.