Cited by 53Machine Learning in HealthcareBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic Modeling

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A large language model–based generative natural language processing framework fine‐tuned on clinical notes accurately extracts headache frequency from electronic health records

Open access

Abstract

Objective: To develop a natural language processing (NLP) algorithm that can accurately extract headache frequency from free‐text clinical notes. Background: Headache frequency, defined as the number of days with any headache in a month (or 4 weeks), remains a key parameter in the evaluation of treatment response to migraine preventive medications. However, due to the variations and inconsistencies in documentation by clinicians, significant challenges exist to accurately extract headache frequency from the electronic health record (EHR) by traditional NLP algorithms. Methods: This was a retrospective cross‐sectional study with patients identified from two tertiary headache referral centers, Mayo Clinic Arizona and Mayo Clinic Rochester. All neurology consultation notes written by 15 specialized clinicians (11 headache specialists and 4 nurse practitioners) between 2012 and 2022 were extracted and 1915 notes were used for model fine‐tuning (90%) and testing (10%). We employed four different NLP frameworks: (1) ClinicalBERT (Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers) regression model, (2) Generative Pre‐Trained Transformer‐2 (GPT‐2) Question Answering (QA) model zero‐shot, (3) GPT‐2 QA model few‐shot training fine‐tuned on clinical notes, and (4) GPT‐2 generative model few‐shot training fine‐tuned on clinical notes to generate the answer by considering the context of included text. Results: The mean (standard deviation) headache frequency of our training and testing datasets were 13.4 (10.9) and 14.4 (11.2), respectively. The GPT‐2 generative model was the best‐performing model with an accuracy of 0.92 (0.91, 0.93, 95% confidence interval [CI]) and R 2 score of 0.89 (0.87, 0.90, 95% CI), and all GPT‐2–based models outperformed the ClinicalBERT model in terms of exact matching accuracy. Although the ClinicalBERT regression model had the lowest accuracy of 0.27 (0.26, 0.28), it demonstrated a high R 2 score of 0.88 (0.85, 0.89), suggesting the ClinicalBERT model can reasonably predict the headache frequency within a range of ≤ ± 3 days, and the R 2 score was higher than the GPT‐2 QA zero‐shot model or GPT‐2 QA model few‐shot training fine‐tuned model. Conclusion: We developed a robust information extraction model based on a state‐of‐the‐art large language model, a GPT‐2 generative model that can extract headache frequency from EHR free‐text clinical notes with high accuracy and R 2 score. It overcame several challenges related to different ways clinicians document headache frequency that were not easily achieved by traditional NLP models. We also showed that GPT‐2–based frameworks outperformed ClinicalBERT in terms of accuracy in extracting headache frequency from clinical notes. To facilitate research in the field, we released the GPT‐2 generative model and inference code with open‐source license of community use in GitHub. Additional fine‐tuning of the algorithm might be required when applied to different health‐care systems for various clinical use cases.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/head.14702

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The ability to identify linguistically complex constructs at scale has implications for mixed-methods researchers, in that measures that were previously unquantifiable may be quantified.

    “The ability to identify linguistically complex constructs at scale also has implications for mixed-methods researchers, in that measures that were previously unquantifiable may be quantified.39–42”

    From Assessment of a Zero-Shot Large Language Model in Measuring Documented Goals-of-Care Discussions (2026) · cites this paper as [40]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) says varied wording makes large-scale extraction of headache frequency difficult, and the Results report that the model extracted it accurately. This supports quantifying information from complex clinical text at scale, but not the claim that the measure was previously unquantifiable: the Methods describe readers manually extracting headache frequency from notes. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. 10.1111/head.12482 · DOI
  2. 10.1186/s10194-022-01490-0 · DOI
  3. Guo Y, 2023, Generalizable natural language processing framework for migraine reporting from social media, AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc, 2023, 261
  4. 10.1186/s10194-022-01493-x · DOI
  5. 10.1038/sdata.2016.35 · DOI · Paper page
  6. AlsentzerE MurphyJR BoagW et al.Publicly available clinical BERT embeddings.ArXiv2019. doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.03323 · DOI
  7. HuangK AltosaarJ RanganathR.ClinicalBERT: modeling clinical notes and predicting hospital readmission.ArXiv2019. doi:10.48550/arxiv.1904.05342 · DOI · Paper page
  8. 10.18653/v1/W19-1909 · DOI · Paper page
  9. BjorckJ WeinbergerK GomesC.Understanding decoupled and early weight decay.ArXiv2020. doi:10.48550/arxiv.2012.13841 · DOI
  10. LoshchilovI HutterF.Decoupled weight decay regularization. InInternational Conference on Learning Representations 20182017. doi:10.48550/arxiv.1711.05101 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.18653/v1/D16-1264 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1111/head.14069 · DOI
  13. 10.1111/head.14154 · DOI
  14. 10.1177/0333102417738202 · DOI
  15. 10.1111/head.14495 · DOI
  16. 10.1177/03331024231156925 · DOI
  17. 10.1111/head.14324 · DOI
  18. 10.1111/ene.15458 · DOI
  19. 10.1111/head.14339 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Chiang, C., Luo, M., Dumkrieger, G., Trivedi, S., Chen, Y., Chao, C., Schwedt, T. J., Sarker, A., & Banerjee, I.
Affiliations
  • Mayo Clinic (US)
  • Emory University (US)
Corresponding author
Chiang, Chia‐Chun
Venue
Headache: The Journal of Head and Face Pain
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2024-03-25
Volume
64
Issue
4
Pages
400-409
ISSN
  • 0017-8748 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-4610
OpenAlex
W4393148752
Cited by
53
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 21
FWCI
7.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Headache The Journal of Head and Face Pain (publishedVersion)
  • medRxiv (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (U01 CA269264‐01‐1)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
migraine, clinical notes, electronic health records, large language models, GPT-2, ClinicalBERT, clinical text extraction, natural language processing, zero-shot question answering, few-shot fine-tuning, generative models, regression models, clinical documentation improvement, nurse practitioners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review