Human-level information extraction from clinical reports with fine-tuned language models

preprint OA: closed
📄 Open PDF Full text JSON View at publisher
AI-generated deep summary by claude@2026-07, 2026-07-06 · read from full text

The paper studies whether open-source large language models can extract structured research variables from clinical reports with minimal annotation and computational resources, by developing Strata, a low-code library that turns LLMs into data extraction pipelines. Four datasets were labeled by trained researchers (prostate MRI, breast pathology, kidney pathology, and bone marrow/MDS pathology reports), and multiple model types—including instruction-tuned, medicine-specific, reasoning-based, and LoRA-finetuned LLMs—were evaluated against zero-shot GPT-4 and a second human annotator using exact match accuracy for all variables. LoRA-finetuned Llama-3.1 8B achieved non-inferior performance to the second human annotator across all four datasets with an average exact match accuracy of 90.0 ± 1.7, while other open-source models underperformed and GPT-4 was non-inferior except for kidney pathology. The paper does not explicitly discuss endometriosis or adenomyosis; it was included in the corpus via a keyword match in the upstream search index.

Read from the paper's body, not the abstract. Not a substitute for reading the paper. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

Extracting structured data from clinical notes remains a key bottleneck in clinical research. We hypothesized that with minimal computational and annotation resources, open-source large language models (LLMs) could create high-quality research databases. We developed Strata, a low-code library for leveraging LLMs for data extraction from clinical reports. Trained researchers labeled four datasets from prostate MRI, breast pathology, kidney pathology, and bone marrow (MDS) pathology reports. Using Strata, we evaluated open-source LLMs, including instruction-tuned, medicine-specific, reasoning-based, and LoRA-finetuned LLMs. We compared these models to zero-shot GPT-4 and a second human annotator. Our primary evaluation metric was exact match accuracy, which assesses if all variables for a report were extracted correctly. LoRa-finetuned Llama-3.1 8B achieved non-inferior performance to the second human annotator across all four datasets, with an average exact match accuracy of 90.0 ± 1.7. Fine-tuned Llama-3.1 outperformed all other open-source models, including DeepSeekR1-Distill-Llama and Llama-3-8B-UltraMedical, which obtained average exact match accuracies of 56.8 ± 29.0 and 39.1 ± 24.4 respectively. GPT-4 was non-inferior to the second human annotator in all datasets except kidney pathology. Small, open-source LLMs offer an accessible solution for the curation of local research databases; they obtain human-level accuracy while only leveraging desktop-grade hardware and ≤ 100 training reports. Unlike commercial LLMs, these tools can be locally hosted and version-controlled. Strata enables automated human-level performance in extracting structured data from clinical notes using ≤ 100 training reports and a single desktop-grade GPU.
Full text 4,374 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Abstract Extracting structured data from clinical notes remains a key bottleneck in clinical research. We hypothesized that with minimal computational and annotation resources, open-source large language models (LLMs) could create high-quality research databases. We developed Strata, a low-code library for leveraging LLMs for data extraction from clinical reports. Trained researchers labeled four datasets from prostate MRI, breast pathology, kidney pathology, and bone marrow (MDS) pathology reports. Using Strata, we evaluated open-source LLMs, including instruction-tuned, medicine-specific, reasoning-based, and LoRA-finetuned LLMs. We compared these models to zero-shot GPT-4 and a second human annotator. Our primary evaluation metric was exact match accuracy, which assesses if all variables for a report were extracted correctly. LoRa-finetuned Llama-3.1 8B achieved non-inferior performance to the second human annotator across all four datasets, with an average exact match accuracy of 90.0 ± 1.7. Fine-tuned Llama-3.1 outperformed all other open-source models, including DeepSeekR1-Distill-Llama and Llama-3-8B-UltraMedical, which obtained average exact match accuracies of 56.8 ± 29.0 and 39.1 ± 24.4 respectively. GPT-4 was non-inferior to the second human annotator in all datasets except kidney pathology. Small, open-source LLMs offer an accessible solution for the curation of local research databases; they obtain human-level accuracy while only leveraging desktop-grade hardware and ≤ 100 training reports. Unlike commercial LLMs, these tools can be locally hosted and version-controlled. Strata enables automated human-level performance in extracting structured data from clinical notes using ≤ 100 training reports and a single desktop-grade GPU. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Funding Statement Adam Yala is supported by the E.P. Evans Foundation and Breast Cancer Research Foundation awards. Alexander G. Bick is supported by NIH grants DP5 OD029586, a Burroughs Wellcome Fund Career Award for Medical Scientists, the E.P. Evans Foundation, and a Pew-Stewart Scholar for Cancer Research award, supported by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the Alexander and Margaret Stewart Trust. Maggie Chung is supported by the Radiological Society of North America Research Scholar Grant. Funders did not directly influence or partake in this study. Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: The Human Research Protection Program of University of California, San Francisco, waived ethical approval of this Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act compliant study due to minimal risk and retrospective nature of the study with no subject contact. I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes Footnotes Longchao Liu and Long Lian are joint first authors. Adam Yala and Maggie Chung are joint senior authors. Added several additional open-source LLM baselines and removed confusing "other" category in the kidney dataset. Changes reflected throughout the paper (tables 3 and 4, figures 4, 5, and 6, and all sections of writing). Data Availability All data produced in the present work are contained in the manuscript.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2024) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00