Evaluation and LLM-Guided Learning of ICD Coding Rationales

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2508.16777v1
• Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2025 20:20:35 GMT
• Title: Evaluation and LLM-Guided Learning of ICD Coding Rationales
• Authors: Mingyang Li, Viktor Schlegel, Tingting Mu, Wuraola Oyewusi, Kai Kang, Goran Nenadic,
• Abstract summary: Automated clinical coding involves mapping unstructured text from Electronic Health Records to standardized code systems such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD)<n>The lack of explainability in these models remains a major limitation, undermining trust and transparency.<n>We conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the explainability of the rationales for ICD coding through two key lenses: faithfulness that evaluates how well explanations reflect the model's actual reasoning and plausibility that measures how consistent the explanations are with human expert judgment.
• Score: 24.68682852985323
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Automated clinical coding involves mapping unstructured text from Electronic Health Records (EHRs) to standardized code systems such as the International Classification of Diseases (ICD). While recent advances in deep learning have significantly improved the accuracy and efficiency of ICD coding, the lack of explainability in these models remains a major limitation, undermining trust and transparency. Current explorations about explainability largely rely on attention-based techniques and qualitative assessments by physicians, yet lack systematic evaluation using consistent criteria on high-quality rationale datasets, as well as dedicated approaches explicitly trained to generate rationales for further enhancing explanation. In this work, we conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the explainability of the rationales for ICD coding through two key lenses: faithfulness that evaluates how well explanations reflect the model's actual reasoning and plausibility that measures how consistent the explanations are with human expert judgment. To facilitate the evaluation of plausibility, we construct a new rationale-annotated dataset, offering denser annotations with diverse granularity and aligns better with current clinical practice, and conduct evaluation across three types of rationales of ICD coding. Encouraged by the promising plausibility of LLM-generated rationales for ICD coding, we further propose new rationale learning methods to improve the quality of model-generated rationales, where rationales produced by prompting LLMs with/without annotation examples are used as distant supervision signals. We empirically find that LLM-generated rationales align most closely with those of human experts. Moreover, incorporating few-shot human-annotated examples not only further improves rationale generation but also enhances rationale-learning approaches.

Related papers

• Concept-Enhanced Multimodal RAG: Towards Interpretable and Accurate Radiology Report Generation [12.226029763256962]
  Radiology Report Generation through Vision-Language Models (VLMs) promises to reduce documentation burden, improve reporting consistency, and accelerate clinical adoption.<n>Existing research treats interpretability and accuracy as separate objectives, with concept-based explainability techniques focusing primarily on transparency.<n>We present Concept-Enhanced Multimodal RAG (CEMRAG), a unified framework that decomposes visual representations into interpretable clinical concepts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-17T15:18:07Z)
• RADAR: Revealing Asymmetric Development of Abilities in MLLM Pre-training [59.493415006017635]
  Pre-trained Multi-modal Large Language Models (MLLMs) provide a knowledge-rich foundation for post-training.<n>Current evaluation relies on testing after supervised fine-tuning, which introduces laborious additional training and autoregressive decoding costs.<n>We propose RADAR, an efficient ability-centric evaluation framework for Revealing Asymmetric Development of Abilities in MLLM pRe-training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-13T12:56:31Z)
• A Multi-faceted Analysis of Cognitive Abilities: Evaluating Prompt Methods with Large Language Models on the CONSORT Checklist [1.1731001328350983]
  This study applies a behavioral and metacognitive analytic approach using an expert-validated dataset.<n>We analyze both cognitive adaptation and calibration error using metrics: Expected Error (ECE) and a baseline-normalized Relative Error (RCE)<n>Our results reveal pronounced miscalibration and overconfidence in both models, especially under clinical role-playing conditions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-22T00:15:02Z)
• RAD: Towards Trustworthy Retrieval-Augmented Multi-modal Clinical Diagnosis [56.373297358647655]
  Retrieval-Augmented Diagnosis (RAD) is a novel framework that injects external knowledge into multimodal models directly on downstream tasks.<n>RAD operates through three key mechanisms: retrieval and refinement of disease-centered knowledge from multiple medical sources, a guideline-enhanced contrastive loss transformer, and a dual decoder.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T10:36:14Z)
• Improving ARDS Diagnosis Through Context-Aware Concept Bottleneck Models [2.3802351706765017]
  Large, publicly available clinical datasets have emerged as a novel resource for understanding disease.<n>These datasets are derived from data not originally collected for research purposes and, as a result, are often incomplete and lack critical labels.<n>Many AI tools have been developed to retrospectively label these datasets, such as by performing disease classification.<n>Previous work has attempted to explain predictions using Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs), which learn interpretable concepts that map to higher-level clinical ideas.<n>We use the identification of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) as a challenging test case to demonstrate the value of incorporating contextual information from clinical notes to improve
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-13T11:19:30Z)
• Medical Reasoning in the Era of LLMs: A Systematic Review of Enhancement Techniques and Applications [59.721265428780946]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine have enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning.<n>This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field.<n>We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies and test-time mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-01T14:41:31Z)
• AGIR: Assessing 3D Gait Impairment with Reasoning based on LLMs [0.0]
  gait impairment plays an important role in early diagnosis, disease monitoring, and treatment evaluation for neurodegenerative diseases.<n>Recent deep learning-based approaches have consistently improved classification accuracies, but they often lack interpretability.<n>We introduce AGIR, a novel pipeline consisting of a pre-trained VQ-VAE motion tokenizer and a Large Language Model (LLM) fine-tuned over pairs of motion tokens.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-23T17:12:16Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Beyond Single-Value Metrics: Evaluating and Enhancing LLM Unlearning with Cognitive Diagnosis [34.62178125699054]
  UNCD (UNlearning evaluation via Cognitive Diagnosis) is a novel framework for fine-grained evaluation of LLM unlearning.<n>Our benchmark, UNCD-Cyber, provides a detailed assessment of the removal of dangerous capabilities.<n>Our dedicated benchmark, UNCD-Cyber, provides a detailed assessment of the removal of dangerous capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-19T06:56:59Z)
• Evaluating Human Alignment and Model Faithfulness of LLM Rationale [66.75309523854476]
  We study how well large language models (LLMs) explain their generations through rationales. We show that prompting-based methods are less "faithful" than attribution-based explanations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-28T20:06:30Z)
• Beyond Self-Consistency: Ensemble Reasoning Boosts Consistency and Accuracy of LLMs in Cancer Staging [0.33554367023486936]
  Cancer staging status is available in clinical reports, but it requires natural language processing to extract it. With the advance in clinical-oriented large language models, it is promising to extract such status without extensive efforts in training the algorithms. In this study, we propose an ensemble reasoning approach with the aim of improving the consistency of the model generations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-19T19:34:35Z)
• CoRelation: Boosting Automatic ICD Coding Through Contextualized Code Relation Learning [56.782963838838036]
  We propose a novel approach, a contextualized and flexible framework, to enhance the learning of ICD code representations. Our approach employs a dependent learning paradigm that considers the context of clinical notes in modeling all possible code relations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-24T03:25:28Z)
• Can Current Explainability Help Provide References in Clinical Notes to Support Humans Annotate Medical Codes? [53.45585591262433]
  We present an explainable Read, Attend, and Code (xRAC) framework and assess two approaches, attention score-based xRAC-ATTN and model-agnostic knowledge-distillation-based xRAC-KD. We find that the supporting evidence text highlighted by xRAC-ATTN is of higher quality than xRAC-KD whereas xRAC-KD has potential advantages in production deployment scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-10-28T04:06:07Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.