A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy Large-scale Clinical Information Extraction using Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.06028v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 16:23:52 GMT
• Title: A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy Large-scale Clinical Information Extraction using Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for extracting clinically meaningful information from unstructured health records.<n>We propose a multi-stage validation framework for LLM-based clinical information extraction.<n>We applied this framework to extraction of substance use disorder diagnoses across 11 substance categories from 919,783 clinical notes.
• Score: 1.9110728489340625
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for extracting clinically meaningful information from unstructured health records, yet their translation into real-world settings is constrained by the lack of scalable and trustworthy validation approaches. Conventional evaluation methods rely heavily on annotation-intensive reference standards or incomplete structured data, limiting feasibility at population scale. We propose a multi-stage validation framework for LLM-based clinical information extraction that enables rigorous assessment under weak supervision. The framework integrates prompt calibration, rule-based plausibility filtering, semantic grounding assessment, targeted confirmatory evaluation using an independent higher-capacity judge LLM, selective expert review, and external predictive validity analysis to quantify uncertainty and characterize error modes without exhaustive manual annotation. We applied this framework to extraction of substance use disorder (SUD) diagnoses across 11 substance categories from 919,783 clinical notes. Rule-based filtering and semantic grounding removed 14.59% of LLM-positive extractions that were unsupported, irrelevant, or structurally implausible. For high-uncertainty cases, the judge LLM's assessments showed substantial agreement with subject matter expert review (Gwet's AC1=0.80). Using judge-evaluated outputs as references, the primary LLM achieved an F1 score of 0.80 under relaxed matching criteria. LLM-extracted SUD diagnoses also predicted subsequent engagement in SUD specialty care more accurately than structured-data baselines (AUC=0.80). These findings demonstrate that scalable, trustworthy deployment of LLM-based clinical information extraction is feasible without annotation-intensive evaluation.

Related papers

• ConfTriage: A Calibration-Aware LLM Triage Framework for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy with Selective Specialist Deferral [3.306924107222105]
  We investigate whether a generalist large language model (LLM), reading only a faithful natural-language rendering of standard nodule attributes, can serve as a calibrated triage layer.<n>We propose ConfTriage, a confidence-calibrated method built on three pillars: language as the modality, calibration as the safety mechanism, and a selective specialist DL backstop for low-confidence cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-11T13:02:41Z)
• CLExEval: A Human-in-the-Loop Framework for Qualitative Evaluation of LLM Clinical Reasoning [37.91882261875461]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve strong results on many medical benchmarks, but their clinical reasoning remains difficult to evaluate reliably.<n>We introduce CLExEval, a human-in-the-loop framework for evaluating LLM clinical reasoning under progressive information masking.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-30T12:56:42Z)
• Beyond Scalar Scores: Exploring LLM-based Metrics for Clinical Significance Evaluation in Radiology Reports [49.5225801722164]
  Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar.<n>We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T08:10:30Z)
• Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Post-Discharge Clinical Action Extraction [0.0]
  This paper evaluates zero-shot and few-shot large language models (LLMs) for safety-critical clinical action extraction using the CLIP discharge-note dataset.<n>We introduce a two-stage extraction framework that decomposes discharge notes, that are written in narrative form, into fine-grained, explicitly actionable clinical tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-07T13:05:07Z)
• Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification [60.18369393468405]
  Existing verifiers usually underperform owing to a lack of domain knowledge and limited calibration.<n>GLEAN compiles expert-curated protocols into trajectory-informed, well-calibrated correctness signals.<n>We empirically validate GLEAN with agentic clinical diagnosis across three diseases from the MIMIC-IV dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-03T09:36:43Z)
• PREBA: Surgical Duration Prediction via PCA-Weighted Retrieval-Augmented LLMs and Bayesian Averaging Aggregation [51.96735866702332]
  PREBA is a retrieval-augmented framework that integrates PCA-weighted retrieval and Bayesian averaging aggregation.<n> PREBA significantly improves performance-for instance, reducing MAE by up to 40% and raising R2 from -0.13 to 0.62 over zero-shot inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T07:19:23Z)
• Suppressing Prior-Comparison Hallucinations in Radiology Report Generation via Semantically Decoupled Latent Steering [94.37535002230504]
  We develop a training-free, inference-time control framework termed Semantically Decoupled Latent Steering.<n>Our approach constructs a semantic-free intervention vector via large language model (LLM)-driven semantic decomposition.<n>We show that our approach significantly reduces the probability of historical hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T04:49:01Z)
• LiveMedBench: A Contamination-Free Medical Benchmark for LLMs with Automated Rubric Evaluation [22.211535340726073]
  LiveMedBench is a continuously updated benchmark that harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities.<n>LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria.<n>Extensive evaluation reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T23:38:25Z)
• Toward Reliable Clinical Coding with Language Models: Verification and Lightweight Adaptation [3.952186976672079]
  We show that lightweight interventions, including prompt engineering and small-scale fine-tuning, can improve accuracy without the computational overhead of search-based methods.<n>To address hierarchically near-miss errors, we introduce clinical code verification as both a standalone task and a pipeline component.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-08T23:50:58Z)
• From Scores to Steps: Diagnosing and Improving LLM Performance in Evidence-Based Medical Calculations [45.414878840652115]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on medical benchmarks.<n>However, their ability to perform medical calculations remains underexplored and poorly evaluated.<n>In this work, we revisit medical calculation evaluation with a stronger focus on clinical trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T09:10:26Z)
• The Knowledge-Reasoning Dissociation: Fundamental Limitations of LLMs in Clinical Natural Language Inference [13.59675117792588]
  Large language models are often assumed to acquire increasingly structured, generalizable internal representations simply by scaling data and parameters.<n>We interrogate this assumption by introducing a Clinical Trial Natural Language In Attribution benchmark comprising four reasoning families.<n>Each item is paired with a targeted Ground Knowledge and Meta-Level Reasoning Verification probe, allowing us to dissociate failures of factual access from failures of inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-14T16:01:10Z)
• 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)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)

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.