Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 46 references

Large Language Models for Automating Clinical Data Standardization: HL7 FHIR Use Case

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read Context-aware LLMs can map structured clinical tables into HL7 FHIR with high resource-level accuracy, making semi-automated interoperability workflows feasible.

desk verdict Useful applied baseline for LLM-to-FHIR mapping, but the retrieval accuracies are selection-best-case and the abstract overstates them. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.03067 v1 pith:YSX26JDF submitted 2025-07-03 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

Alvaro Riquelme , Pedro Costa , Catalina Martinez This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords HL7FHIRLargeLanguageModelsRetrievalAugmentedGenerationSemanticClusteringDataInteroperabilityMIMIC-IVClinicalStandardizationPromptEngineering
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether large language models can take over the labor-intensive task of converting structured clinical data into HL7 FHIR, the interoperability standard used to exchange healthcare records. It argues yes, for a semi-automated workflow, and backs that claim with experiments on the MIMIC-IV intensive-care database. The central result is that a pipeline combining retrieval-augmented generation, semantic clustering, and structured prompting identifies the correct FHIR resource for real-world attribute groups 94% of the time, and that GPT-4o maps roughly 68% of individual attributes to the correct FHIR element. That would matter because FHIR mapping currently requires scarce domain experts and is too slow to scale across the many local data models in healthcare.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a three-stage pipeline. First, input tables are preprocessed into JSON with column descriptions and representative values. Second, context building uses hybrid retrieval, combining TF-IDF, BM25, Universal Sentence Encoder, and Word2Vec embeddings via Reciprocal Rank Fusion, and in the real-world scenario specialized clinical embeddings, to rank candidate FHIR resources for each table or attribute cluster. Third, LLM interaction prompts GPT-4o or Llama 3.2 to map each attribute to FHIR elements, with structured outputs and JSON schemas enforcing a consistent response format. Semantic clustering groups related attributes when table-level context is absent.

What would settle it

Have independent clinical informaticists annotate the same 68-attribute subset and the 119 baseline attributes to FHIR, and compare their consensus against the gold standard used here; if agreement between annotators or with the gold standard is much lower than the reported accuracy, the central accuracy numbers are not measuring what they claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's claim is that context-aware LLM-driven transformation of structured clinical data into HL7 FHIR is feasible for semi-automated interoperability workflows. In the curated baseline, resource-level identification reaches 100% accuracy; in a simulated real-world scenario with unsorted attributes and no table-level context, retrieval identifies the correct FHIR resource 94% of the time using biomedical embeddings, and GPT-4o maps 67.7% to 69.9% of attributes correctly depending on temperature, notably outperforming Llama 3.2 405b. The authors also find that including FHIR resource JSON schemas in prompts narrows confidence intervals and reduces mapping ambiguity, while missing source descriptions and occasional hallucinations remain limitations requiring manual validation.

Load-bearing premise

The reported accuracy numbers assume that each MIMIC-IV attribute has exactly one correct FHIR target, but the paper does not measure inter-annotator agreement, so a mapping the authors call an error could be a legitimate alternative.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Resource-level identification in curated tables can reach 100%, so table-to-resource assignment can be fully automated under well-documented schemas.
  • In real-world settings with only column descriptions, retrieval still finds the right FHIR resource 94% of the time, meaning the main bottleneck moves to attribute-level mapping.
  • Attribute-level accuracy around 68% with GPT-4o implies a human-in-the-loop workflow is needed, but one that removes most of the manual mapping effort.
  • Adding FHIR JSON schemas to prompts narrows confidence intervals and reduces ambiguity, so machine-readable context is a concrete lever for reliability.
  • GPT-4o consistently outperforms Llama 3.2 405b and is less sensitive to temperature, suggesting closed frontier models currently give the most stable mappings.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The roughly two-thirds attribute accuracy may be enough for expert-in-the-loop production use, but not for unattended automation; a reasonable next benchmark is measuring how much expert time this actually saves versus manual mapping.
  • The same retrieval-plus-prompting pipeline should transfer to other standards such as HL7 CDA or OMOP CDM, since it only needs a corpus of target schema descriptions; testing that would be a cheap extension.
  • The absence of inter-annotator agreement suggests the true mapping accuracy could be higher or lower than reported; a proper uncertainty estimate would require adjudicated gold standards.
  • A testable extension is to replace the generic LLM with a fine-tuned open-weight model on FHIR-specific corpora, which the authors list as future work and which would clarify whether the gap with GPT-4o is model size or training data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a semi-automated pipeline that combines text embeddings, clustering, retrieval-augmented generation, and large language models (GPT-4o and Llama 3.2 405B) to map structured clinical data from MIMIC-IV to HL7 FHIR resources and attributes. In a baseline scenario with 17 tables and 119 attributes (after excluding 64 of 183), the authors report 100% resource-level identification and GPT-4o attribute-level accuracy of 67.02–73.88% (95% CI), while Llama 3.2 reaches 43.79–52.98%. In a simulated real-world scenario with a single 68-attribute table, resource retrieval reaches 94% and attribute-level mapping is 67.7–69.9% for GPT-4o and 54.5–57.8% for Llama 3.2, with the best results obtained at specific temperature settings. The authors conclude that the approach demonstrates feasibility of context-aware, LLM-driven semi-automated FHIR interoperability workflows.

Significance. If the reported accuracy numbers were unbiased, the paper would make a useful contribution to clinical data interoperability by showing that LLMs combined with retrieval and clustering can reduce the manual effort required to map legacy tabular schemas to FHIR. The work is timely, the pipeline is concretely described, and the authors provide prompts and results on GitHub, which supports reproducibility. However, the evaluation protocol has load-bearing methodological weaknesses: configuration selection and evaluation share the same gold standard, the gold standard itself lacks inter-annotator agreement assessment, and the abstract's headline 94% conflates resource retrieval with the much lower attribute-level mapping accuracy. The central feasibility claim is plausible but currently rests on accuracy figures that may be inflated and are reported in a way that overstates the actual attribute mapping performance.

major comments (4)
  1. [Real World Scenario – Context Building; Results] The reported 94% resource-retrieval accuracy is a selection-best-case estimate rather than an unbiased evaluation. The paper states that initial embeddings achieved 87.9% accuracy and that switching to biomedical embeddings raised accuracy to 94%, and that clustering algorithms and configurations were selected using Silhouette, Calinski-Harabasz, and Davies-Bouldin metrics. Since the same 68-attribute gold-standard mapping appears to drive both configuration selection and the final accuracy report, with no held-out split, cross-validation, or pre-registered configuration, the 94% figure likely overstates the expected pipeline accuracy. Please separate configuration selection from evaluation, e.g., by using a development subset for tuning and a disjoint test subset for reporting, or by reporting accuracy across all tried configurations rather than only the best.
  2. [Abstract; Results] The abstract's statement that 'under real-world conditions, accuracy dipped slightly to 94%' refers to resource-level identification (retrieval), not attribute-level mapping. The attribute-level accuracy in the real-world scenario is considerably lower: 67.7–69.9% for GPT-4o at the best temperature setting. Because the paper's stated objective is mapping table attributes to FHIR elements, the headline number is misleading. The abstract and the Results section should explicitly distinguish resource-level retrieval accuracy from attribute-level mapping accuracy and report both numbers, with the attribute-level figure given equal prominence in the abstract.
  3. [Methods – Baseline Scenario, Data Processing] The baseline evaluation excludes 64 of 183 attributes (35%) as 'redundant' or 'lacking a feasible FHIR representation' after an 'exhaustive review,' but the paper does not list the excluded attributes or specify operational exclusion criteria. If the exclusion is subjective, the reported 67–74% attribute-level accuracy applies only to an author-filtered subset and cannot be interpreted as accuracy over the original table schemas. Please provide the list of excluded attributes, the criteria used, and ideally a sensitivity analysis that treats excluded attributes as failed mappings in a conservative scoring.
  4. [Methods – Evaluation and Gold Standard] The gold-standard mappings used to compute all accuracy figures are (for the baseline) manual author mappings and (for the real-world scenario) mappings 'made previously by MIMIC developers.' No inter-annotator agreement, adjudication procedure, or independent validation is reported, so the correctness and unambiguity of the reference labels are unestablished. Ambiguous or erroneous gold-standard mappings would directly mismeasure every reported accuracy, and the risk is compounded in the real-world scenario where the same gold standard appears to drive configuration selection and final evaluation. Please make the gold-standard mapping file publicly available, describe how mappings were derived, and report inter-annotator agreement or provide a convincing argument that the mappings are unambiguous.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'resource identification achieved a perfect F1-score,' but the paper reports only accuracy (proportion correct) for resource-level identification and does not compute an F1-score anywhere. Please correct the terminology to 'perfect accuracy.'
  2. [Results, Tables 3 and 4] Tables 3 and 4 report only 95% confidence intervals; the text reports means (e.g., 68.8% for GPT-4o at t=0.5). Including the mean and the CI method (e.g., exact binomial, Wilson) in the tables would improve clarity.
  3. [Methods, LLM Interaction] The paper reports N=4 for the baseline prompt experiments and N=10 for the real-world temperature experiments but never defines what N represents (number of runs, number of attributes, or number of prompt variants). Please clarify.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typos and stylistic inconsistencies: 'GPT-4o shown' should be 'GPT-4o showed,' 'differents temperature configurations' should be 'different temperature configurations,' and 'LLaMA' is used inconsistently alongside 'Llama.' Please copyedit.
  5. [Figures 1 and 2] The figures are referenced but not included in the manuscript text. They are important for understanding the pipeline; please ensure they are legible and accompanied by captions that clearly label steps 1.1–1.3 and 2.1–2.3.
  6. [References] Several reference entries are incomplete or malformed (e.g., references 2 and 3 appear as 'CT S; 2007' and 'LOINC; 1994' with no titles or authors). Please format all references consistently according to the journal style.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LLM mapping is evaluated against externally defined FHIR gold standards and the reported accuracies are empirical measurements, not predictions forced by construction.

full rationale

The paper does not contain a derivation chain in which a claimed result is equivalent to its own inputs. In the baseline scenario, the authors manually mapped MIMIC-IV table attributes to FHIR and then evaluated whether LLMs could reproduce those mappings; this is a standard held-out-target evaluation design, not a definitional circularity, because the LLM output is not used to define the gold standard. In the real-world scenario, the 68-attribute subset and its FHIR mapping are stated to have been made previously by MIMIC developers, providing an external reference. The reported resource-identification accuracies (100% baseline, 94% real-world) are empirical retrieval results obtained with the final selected pipeline, not quantities derived algebraically from the gold labels. The hybrid retrieval strategy and specialized embeddings were chosen after comparing alternatives on the same evaluation data, and 64 of 183 baseline attributes were excluded after an author review; these are methodological threats to the unbiasedness or generalizability of the accuracy estimates. However, model selection on an evaluation set and subjective exclusion criteria are correctness risks, not circularity: nothing in the text defines the predicted mappings in terms of the fitted retrieval configuration, and the accuracy numbers could in principle have been different. No load-bearing self-citation chain, imported uniqueness theorem, ansatz smuggled in via citation, or renaming of a known result as a new prediction was found. The paper is therefore best characterized as empirically self-contained for the purpose of the circularity analysis.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, dimensions, or conceptual entities. Its outputs are mappings between existing MIMIC attributes and FHIR elements. The only hidden baggage is in the choices described as free parameters: excluded attributes, the top-5 resource pool, and embedding or clustering configuration selected on the evaluation set.

free parameters (3)
  • Attribute exclusion set (183 to 119) = 64 attributes excluded
    Authors removed redundant attributes and those lacking a feasible FHIR representation, which is a post hoc selection that raises apparent accuracy by dropping hard cases.
  • Candidate FHIR resource pool size k = 5
    In the real-world scenario, the top five most similar resources were retained for each cluster; k=5 was chosen by hand and affects whether the correct resource appears in the prompt.
  • Embedding and clustering configuration = Selected models and algorithms (e.g., MedEmbed, ClinicalBERT, BIRCH, KMeans)
    Configurations were chosen after measuring retrieval and clustering accuracy on the same evaluation set, so the 94% figure includes model selection on test data.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Manual mappings by the authors and by MIMIC developers constitute a correct and unambiguous gold standard.
    All accuracy numbers are computed against these mappings; no inter-annotator agreement is reported.
  • domain assumption Text-embedding cosine similarity between table or cluster descriptions and FHIR resource descriptions reflects true semantic correspondence.
    The retrieval stage assumes the nearest embedding is the correct FHIR resource.
  • domain assumption LLM function calling and structured output at temperature 0 are reliable enough to treat outputs as faithful mappings.
    The paper relies on structured JSON plus function_call='auto'; no separate verification of output validity is reported.
  • domain assumption Official FHIR resource descriptions and JSON schemas used in prompts contain enough information for attribute matching.
    The prompt design assumes the schema alone is sufficient context for correct mappings.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Large Language Models for Automating Clinical Data Standardization: HL7 FHIR Use Case." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YSX26JDF

@misc{pith2026250703067,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Large Language Models for Automating Clinical Data Standardization: HL7 FHIR Use Case},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YSX26JDF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.03067}
}
read the original abstract

For years, semantic interoperability standards have sought to streamline the exchange of clinical data, yet their deployment remains time-consuming, resource-intensive, and technically challenging. To address this, we introduce a semi-automated approach that leverages large language models specifically GPT-4o and Llama 3.2 405b to convert structured clinical datasets into HL7 FHIR format while assessing accuracy, reliability, and security. Applying our method to the MIMIC-IV database, we combined embedding techniques, clustering algorithms, and semantic retrieval to craft prompts that guide the models in mapping each tabular field to its corresponding FHIR resource. In an initial benchmark, resource identification achieved a perfect F1-score, with GPT-4o outperforming Llama 3.2 thanks to the inclusion of FHIR resource schemas within the prompt. Under real-world conditions, accuracy dipped slightly to 94 %, but refinements to the prompting strategy restored robust mappings. Error analysis revealed occasional hallucinations of non-existent attributes and mismatches in granularity, which more detailed prompts can mitigate. Overall, our study demonstrates the feasibility of context-aware, LLM-driven transformation of clinical data into HL7 FHIR, laying the groundwork for semi-automated interoperability workflows. Future work will focus on fine-tuning models with specialized medical corpora, extending support to additional standards such as HL7 CDA and OMOP, and developing an interactive interface to enable expert validation and iterative refinement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.03067 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure illustrating the designed pipeline and a data example for the baseline scenario. The pipeline is divided into three steps. The transformation and the results obtained are depicted as the stages progress (from top to bottom). This example is presented for the Outputevents table, one of the 17 tables in MIMIC-IV. METHODS The proposed methodology for the semi-automatic stan￾dardization of clinical information co… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure illustrating the designed pipeline and a data example for the real world scenario. The pipeline is divided into three steps. The transformation and the results obtained are depicted as the stages progress (from top to bottom). This example is presented using the unified table in a random arrangement and illustrates one of the unsupervised groupings (Cluster 3) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic literature review

    Mello B, Rigo S, André da Costa C, Righi R, Donida B, Bez M, et al. Semantic interoperability in health records standards: a systematic literature review. Health and Technology. 2022 01;12

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    [Web;accedido el 06-06-2025]

    CT S; 2007. [Web;accedido el 06-06-2025]. A vailable from: https://www.snomed.org/

    work page 2007

  3. [3]

    [Web;accedido el 18-03-2025]

    LOINC; 1994. [Web;accedido el 18-03-2025]. A vailable from: https://loinc.org/

    work page 1994

  4. [4]

    HL7 FHIR: An Agile and RESTful ap- proach to healthcare information exchange

    Bender D, Sartipi K. HL7 FHIR: An Agile and RESTful ap- proach to healthcare information exchange. In: Proceedings of the 26th IEEE International Symposium on Computer-Based Medical Systems. IEEE; 2013. p. 326–331. A vailable from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CBMS.2013.6627810. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024, Vol. xx, No. x 8

    work page arXiv 2013

  5. [5]

    OMOP CDM Can Facilitate Data-Driven Studies for Cancer Predic- tion: A Systematic Review

    Ahmadi N, Peng Y, Wolfien M, Zoch M, Sedlmayr M. OMOP CDM Can Facilitate Data-Driven Studies for Cancer Predic- tion: A Systematic Review. International Journal of Molec- ular Sciences. 2022 Oct;23(19):11834. A vailable from: http: //dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms231911834

    doi:10.3390/ijms231911834 2022

  6. [6]

    The openEHR foundation

    Kalra D, Beale T, Heard S. The openEHR foundation. Studies in health technology and informatics. 2005;115:153-73

    work page 2005

  7. [7]

    Introduction to Semantic Interoperability — iris.paho.org; 2021

    Organization PAH. Introduction to Semantic Interoperability — iris.paho.org; 2021. [Accessed 18-03-2025]. https://iris .paho.org/handle/10665.2/55417

    work page 2021

  8. [8]

    Augmented non-hallucinating large language models as medical information curators

    Gilbert S, Kather JN, Hogan A. Augmented non-hallucinating large language models as medical information curators. NPJ Digital Medicine. 2024;7(1):100

    work page 2024

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Physionet, editor

    Physionet. Physionet, editor. Physionet MIMIC. PhysioNet

  2. [10]

    FHIR resources; 2011

    FHIR H. FHIR resources; 2011. [Web; accedido el 17-05-2024]. A vailable from: https://www.hl7.org/fhir/resourcelist. html

    2011

  3. [11]

    ICD-11: an inter- national classification of diseases for the twenty-first century

    Harrison JE, Weber S, Jakob R, Chute CG. ICD-11: an inter- national classification of diseases for the twenty-first century. BMC medical informatics and decision making. 2021;21:1-10

    2021

  4. [12]

    State-of-the-Art Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)–Based Data Model and Structure Implementations: Systematic Scoping Review

    Tabari P, Costagliola G, De Rosa M, Boeker M, et al. State-of-the-Art Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR)–Based Data Model and Structure Implementations: Systematic Scoping Review. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2024;12(1):e58445

    2024

  5. [13]

    Modeling cancer clinical trials using HL7 FHIR to support downstream applications: a case study with colorec- tal cancer data

    Zong N, Stone DJ, Sharma DK, Wen A, Wang C, Yu Y, et al. Modeling cancer clinical trials using HL7 FHIR to support downstream applications: a case study with colorec- tal cancer data. International journal of medical informatics. 2021;145:104308

    2021

  6. [14]

    MIMIC-IV on FHIR

    Bennett A, Wiedekopf J, Ulrich H, van Damme P, Szul P, Grimes J, et al.. MIMIC-IV on FHIR. PhysioNet; 2024. A vail- able from: https://physionet.org/content/mimic-iv-fhi r/

    2024

  7. [15]

    A standardized clinical data har- monization pipeline for scalable AI application deployment (FHIR-DHP): Validation and usability study

    Williams E, Kienast M, Medawar E, Reinelt J, Merola A, Klopfenstein SAI, et al. A standardized clinical data har- monization pipeline for scalable AI application deployment (FHIR-DHP): Validation and usability study. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2023;11:e43847

    2023

  8. [16]

    An ETL-process design for data harmonization to participate in international research with German real-world data based on FHIR and OMOP CDM

    Peng Y, Henke E, Reinecke I, Zoch M, Sedlmayr M, Bathelt F. An ETL-process design for data harmonization to participate in international research with German real-world data based on FHIR and OMOP CDM. International Journal of Medical Informatics. 2023;169:104925

    2023

  9. [17]

    Lever- aging genetic reports and electronic health records for the pre- diction of primary cancers: algorithm development and vali- dation study

    Zong N, Ngo V, Stone DJ, Wen A, Zhao Y, Yu Y, et al. Lever- aging genetic reports and electronic health records for the pre- diction of primary cancers: algorithm development and vali- dation study. JMIR Medical Informatics. 2021;9(5):e23586

    2021

  10. [18]

    A Scalable Method for Validated Data Ex- traction from Electronic Health Records with Large Language Models

    Stuhlmiller TJ, Rabe A, Rapp J, Manasco P, Awawda A, Kouser H, et al. A Scalable Method for Validated Data Ex- traction from Electronic Health Records with Large Language Models. medRxiv. 2025:2025-02

    2025

  11. [19]

    Redefining health care data interoperability: empirical explo- ration of large language models in information exchange

    Yoon D, Han C, Kim DW, Kim S, Bae S, Ryu JA, et al. Redefining health care data interoperability: empirical explo- ration of large language models in information exchange. Jour- nal of Medical Internet Research. 2024;26:e56614

    2024

  12. [20]

    Evaluating the Effective- ness of Large Language Models in Converting Clinical Data to FHIR Format

    Delaunay J, Girbes D, Cusido J. Evaluating the Effective- ness of Large Language Models in Converting Clinical Data to FHIR Format. Preprints. 2025 February. A vailable from: https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202502.1664.v1

    2025

  13. [21]

    COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NLP TECH- NIQUES FOR AUTOMATED MATCHING OF MEDI- CAL INTAKE FORMS TO THE FHIR DATA SCHEMA: EMBEDDING SIMILARITY AND LANGUAGE MODELS; 2024

    Pipalia AT. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF NLP TECH- NIQUES FOR AUTOMATED MATCHING OF MEDI- CAL INTAKE FORMS TO THE FHIR DATA SCHEMA: EMBEDDING SIMILARITY AND LANGUAGE MODELS; 2024

    2024

  14. [22]

    FHIR- GPT Enhances Health Interoperability with Large Language Models

    Li Y, Wang H, Yerebakan HZ, Shinagawa Y, Luo Y. FHIR- GPT Enhances Health Interoperability with Large Language Models. medRxiv. 2023:2023-10

    2023

  15. [23]

    Efficient Standardization of Clinical Notes using Large Language Mod- els

    Hier DB, Carrithers MD, Do TS, Obafemi-Ajayi T. Efficient Standardization of Clinical Notes using Large Language Mod- els. arXiv preprint arXiv:250100644. 2024

    2024

  16. [24]

    LLM on FHIR–Demystifying Health Records

    Schmiedmayer P, Rao A, Zagar P, Ravi V, Zahedivash A, Fereydooni A, et al. LLM on FHIR–Demystifying Health Records. arXiv preprint arXiv:240201711. 2024

    2024

  17. [25]

    Question Answering on Patient Medi- cal Records with Private Fine-Tuned LLMs

    Kothari S, Gupta A. Question Answering on Patient Medi- cal Records with Private Fine-Tuned LLMs. arXiv preprint arXiv:250113687. 2025

    2025

  18. [26]

    Cosine similar- ity to determine similarity measure: Study case in online essay assessment

    Lahitani AR, Permanasari AE, Setiawan NA. Cosine similar- ity to determine similarity measure: Study case in online essay assessment. In: 2016 4th International Conference on Cyber and IT Service Management. IEEE; 2016. p. 1–6. A vailable from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/CITSM....

    2016

  19. [27]

    TFIDFVectorizer; 2011

    scikit learn. TFIDFVectorizer; 2011. [Web;accedido el 26-12- 2024]. A vailable from: https://scikit-learn.org/1.5/mod ules/generated/sklearn.feature_extraction.text.Tfidf Vectorizer.html

    2011

  20. [28]

    The Probabilistic Relevance Frame- work: BM25 and Beyond

    Robertson S, Zaragoza H. The Probabilistic Relevance Frame- work: BM25 and Beyond. Foundations and Trends in Infor- mation Retrieval. 2009 01;3:333-89

    2009

  21. [29]

    Universal sentence encoder

    Cer D. Universal sentence encoder. arXiv preprint arXiv:180311175. 2018

    2018

  22. [30]

    Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space

    Mikolov T. Efficient estimation of word representations in vector space. arXiv preprint arXiv:13013781. 2013;3781

    2013

  23. [31]

    Reciprocal rank fusion outperforms condorcet and individual rank learning methods

    Cormack GV, Clarke CL, Buettcher S. Reciprocal rank fusion outperforms condorcet and individual rank learning methods. In: Proceedings of the 32nd international ACM SIGIR con- ference on Research and development in information retrieval

  24. [32]

    Structured Outputs; 2024

    OpenAI. Structured Outputs; 2024. [Web;Accessed 30/12/2024]. A vailable from: https://platform.openai. com/docs/guides/structured-outputs

    2024

  25. [33]

    K-means clustering algorithm: a brief review

    Chong B, et al. K-means clustering algorithm: a brief review. vol. 2021;4:37-40

    2021

  26. [34]

    Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering al- gorithms

    Müllner D. Modern hierarchical, agglomerative clustering al- gorithms. arXiv preprint arXiv:11092378. 2011

    2011

  27. [35]

    DBSCAN clustering algorithm based on density

    Deng D. DBSCAN clustering algorithm based on density. In: 2020 7th international forum on electrical engineering and au- tomation (IFEEA). IEEE; 2020. p. 949-53

    2020

  28. [36]

    BIRCH: an efficient data clustering method for very large databases

    Zhang T, Ramakrishnan R, Livny M. BIRCH: an efficient data clustering method for very large databases. ACM sigmod record. 1996;25(2):103-14. 9 Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024, Vol. xx, No. x

    1996

  29. [37]

    A scalable and fast OPTICS for clustering trajectory big data

    Deng Z, Hu Y, Zhu M, Huang X, Du B. A scalable and fast OPTICS for clustering trajectory big data. Cluster Comput- ing. 2015;18:549-62

    2015

  30. [38]

    Spectral clustering

    Liu J, Han J. Spectral clustering. In: Data clustering. Chap- man and Hall/CRC; 2018. p. 177-200

    2018

  31. [39]

    Different approaches to the silhouette coeffi- cient calculation in cluster evaluation

    Řezanková H. Different approaches to the silhouette coeffi- cient calculation in cluster evaluation. In: 21st international scientific conference AMSE applications of mathematics and statistics in economics; 2018. p. 1-10

    2018

  32. [40]

    Determining the quality of a dataset in clustering terms

    Rachwał A, Popławska E, Gorgol I, Cieplak T, Pliszczuk D, Skowron Ł, et al. Determining the quality of a dataset in clustering terms. Applied Sciences. 2023;13(5):2942

    2023

  33. [41]

    Analysis of determining centroid clustering x-means algorithm with davies-bouldin in- dex evaluation

    Mughnyanti M, Efendi S, Zarlis M. Analysis of determining centroid clustering x-means algorithm with davies-bouldin in- dex evaluation. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. vol. 725. IOP Publishing; 2020. p. 012128

    2020

  34. [42]

    Embeddings for Medical Literature; 2023

    Mezzetti D. Embeddings for Medical Literature; 2023. [Web;accedido el 02/01/2025]. A vailable from: https://me dium.com/neuml/embeddings-for-medical-literature-74d ae6abf5e0

    2023

  35. [43]

    MedEmbed: Fine-Tuned Embedding Models for Medical / Clinical IR

    Abhinand. MedEmbed: Fine-Tuned Embedding Models for Medical / Clinical IR. Medium; 2024. [Web;accedido el 02/01/2025]. A vailable from: https://abhinand05.mediu m.com/medembed-fine-tuned-embedding-models-for-medic al-clinical-ir-5595b0937b58

    2024

  36. [44]

    Clinicalbert: Model- ing clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission

    Huang K, Altosaar J, Ranganath R. Clinicalbert: Model- ing clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission. arXiv preprint arXiv:190405342. 2019

    2019

  37. [45]

    BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining

    Lee J, Yoon W, Kim S, Kim D, Kim S, So CH, et al. BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text mining. Bioinformatics. 2020;36(4):1234-40. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024, Vol. xx, No. x 10 Figure 2. Figure i...

    2020

  38. [2024]

    A vailable from: https: //physionet.org/content/mimiciv/2.0/

    [Web;accedido el 30-05-2024]. A vailable from: https: //physionet.org/content/mimiciv/2.0/

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.