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

Measuring the sensitivity of LLM-based structured extraction to prompt, model, and schema choices in clinical discharge summaries

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

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2606.05970 (cs)
[Submitted on 4 Jun 2026]

Title:Measuring the sensitivity of LLM-based structured extraction to prompt, model, and schema choices in clinical discharge summaries

Authors:Martin Murin
View a PDF of the paper titled Measuring the sensitivity of LLM-based structured extraction to prompt, model, and schema choices in clinical discharge summaries, by Martin Murin
View PDF
Abstract:Large language models are increasingly used for structured extraction from clinical free-text notes, but the sensitivity of their output to upstream configuration choices is less understood than their accuracy on fixed benchmarks. This work measures that sensitivity without human-annotated ground truth, by holding the extraction task fixed and varying one choice at a time. The fixed schema comprises 17 clinical documentation flags on a three-way yes/no/not_documented value set and a 47-tag vocabulary for the primary admission reason. Three prompt variants expressing this schema were each run at two model sizes on MIMIC-IV v3.1 discharge summaries. Cross-prompt agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa on ICD-stratified subsets. A paired same-note comparison isolated the effect of model choice, and a post-hoc collapse of the three-way flags to binary tested the schema's contribution to disagreement. On the three-way flags, the two models reach the same pooled cross-prompt agreement (median kappa 0.69 and 0.68); the larger model raises agreement on some fields and lowers it on others, a redistribution rather than the absence of an effect. Collapsing the schema to binary dissolves most of the cross-prompt disagreement, locating it on the absence-versus-silence distinction rather than on whether the finding is present. On the multi-class admission categorization, changing the model reassigns the dominant tag on close to half of all notes while changing the prompt phrasing reassigns it on roughly one in eight, and the larger model places far less mass on residual catch-all categories (44% to 26%). These patterns indicate a schema-imposed source of disagreement concentrated on the absence-versus-silence axis and a dominance of model over prompt phrasing on multi-class categorization, identified by a reusable methodology for auditing extraction reproducibility on a population-scale deployment.
Comments: 69 pages, 5 main figures, supplementary material included
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
Cite as: arXiv:2606.05970 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2606.05970v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.05970
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Martin Murin [view email]
[v1] Thu, 4 Jun 2026 10:14:12 UTC (440 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled Measuring the sensitivity of LLM-based structured extraction to prompt, model, and schema choices in clinical discharge summaries, by Martin Murin
  • View PDF
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

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

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