arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

Enhancing LLMs for Identifying and Prioritizing Important Medical Jargons from Electronic Health Record Notes Utilizing Data Augmentation: A Comparative Study

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2502.16022 (cs)
[Submitted on 22 Feb 2025 (v1), last revised 21 Jul 2026 (this version, v3)]

Title:Enhancing LLMs for Identifying and Prioritizing Important Medical Jargons from Electronic Health Record Notes Utilizing Data Augmentation: A Comparative Study

View a PDF of the paper titled Enhancing LLMs for Identifying and Prioritizing Important Medical Jargons from Electronic Health Record Notes Utilizing Data Augmentation: A Comparative Study, by Won Seok Jang and 6 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:OpenNotes gives patients access to their EHR notes, but dense medical jargon limits comprehension. We evaluate closed-source and open-source LLMs for extracting and prioritizing the jargon terms most relevant to individual patients, using 90 expert-annotated EHR notes. We test combinations of general vs. structured prompts, zero-shot vs. few-shot prompting, fine-tuning, and GPT-4o-based data augmentation, the last paired with a ranking technique to refine training in low-resource settings. To assess the effect of dataset size, we fine-tune on augmented datasets scaled from 10 to 9,995 examples. All settings are evaluated with 10-fold cross-validation, reporting F1 and Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) under two string-matching criteria (relaxed matching and Jaccard Index), followed by an error analysis of model outputs. Open-source models performed best when fine-tuned on the gold-standard dataset: under Jaccard-based matching, DeepSeek 8B achieved the top F1 (0.431, SD 0.046) and BioMistral 7B the top MRR (0.577, SD 0.109). Under relaxed matching, however, open-source models did not match closed-source performance even with augmentation or fine-tuning. Few-shot prompting offered no advantage over zero-shot in vanilla models; prompting style substantially affected results; fine-tuning on a small gold-standard set improved performance; and data augmentation matched or exceeded fine-tuning, though its benefit depended heavily on augmented-data quality. These findings show that prompting strategy, fine-tuning, and data augmentation each meaningfully improve LLM performance on patient-centered jargon extraction in low-resource clinical settings.
Comments: 28pages, 5 figures, 6 tables
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
Cite as: arXiv:2502.16022 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2502.16022v3 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2502.16022
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite
Journal reference: JMIR AI. 17.Jul.2026 in Vol 5 (2026)
Related DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/75561
DOI(s) linking to related resources

Submission history

From: Won Seok Jang [view email]
[v1] Sat, 22 Feb 2025 00:50:01 UTC (577 KB)
[v2] Tue, 25 Feb 2025 14:34:15 UTC (578 KB)
[v3] Tue, 21 Jul 2026 20:56:46 UTC (1,150 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Enhancing LLMs for Identifying and Prioritizing Important Medical Jargons from Electronic Health Record Notes Utilizing Data Augmentation: A Comparative Study, by Won Seok Jang and 6 other authors
  • View PDF

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language