ArticleJMIR mental health2026
Practical Guide to Large Language Models for Information Extraction in Behavioral Health Notes: Tutorial.
Article in JMIR mental health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Mental health clinical notes contain decision-critical information often absent from structured electronic health record fields. Large language models (LLMs) can extract clinically relevant signals from narrative text; however, variability in output format, limited reproducibility, and inconsistent evaluation remain barriers to clinical deployment. Despite rapid advances in LLM-based information extraction, clear and reproducible guidance for interdisciplinary clinical teams is limited. Objective: This tutorial aims to present a structured workflow for zero-shot information extraction from mental health clinical notes using locally deployed open-source LLMs. It aims to reduce barriers for clinicians and researchers with limited familiarity with natural language processing (NLP) or LLM-based pipelines. Each stage includes key decision points and examples. The workflow is illustrated on two tasks using synthetic notes: (1) detection of self-injurious thoughts and behaviors (SITB) in pediatric emergency department (ED) notes and (2) antipsychotic medication nonadherence detection in outpatient notes, using schema-constrained outputs and standardized evaluation. Methods: We describe a five-stage zero-shot LLM pipeline: (1) infrastructure setup with local deployment via Results: We demonstrated the pipeline's functionality using 2 example behavioral health detection tasks. Across both examples, the more capable model (Llama 3.3) performed better than the lighter model used earlier in development (Llama 3.2), and we described how the pipeline's evaluation and error-analysis steps work in practice. These examples also illustrated 2 useful design choices: requiring the model to output in a fixed format reduced errors, and using a graded rating scale, rather than a simple yes/no format, allowed the detection threshold to be adjusted based on clinical risk tolerance. These results are meant to show that the pipeline works as intended, not to serve as a benchmark of real-world accuracy. Conclusions: A schema-driven, zero-shot LLM workflow can support reproducible extraction of clinically relevant information from narrative notes. Local deployment enables processing without transmitting PHI to external servers. This tutorial provides a transferable methodology for institutional adaptation and validation prior to clinical use. All prompts, code, and datasets are publicly available via Zenodo (European Organization for Nuclear Research [CERN]).
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.