Cited by 8Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

When Raw Data Prevails: Are Large Language Model Embeddings Effective in Numerical Data Representation for Medical Machine Learning Applications?

Open access
Gao, Yanjun, Myers, Skatje, Chen, Shan, Dligach, Dmitriy, Miller, Timothy A, Bitterman, Danielle, Churpek, Matthew, Afshar, Majid·2024·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024

Abstract

The introduction of Large Language Models (LLMs) has advanced data representation and analysis, bringing significant progress in their use for medical questions and answering. Despite these advancements, integrating tabular data, especially numerical data pivotal in clinical contexts, into LLM paradigms has not been thoroughly explored. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of vector representations from last hidden states of LLMs for medical diagnostics and prognostics using electronic health record (EHR) data. We compare the performance of these embeddings with that of raw numerical EHR data when used as feature inputs to traditional machine learning (ML) algorithms that excel at tabular data learning, such as eXtreme Gradient Boosting. We focus on instruction-tuned LLMs in a zero-shot setting to represent abnormal physiological data and evaluating their utilities as feature extractors to enhance ML classifiers for predicting diagnoses, length of stay, and mortality. Furthermore, we examine prompt engineering techniques on zero-shot and few-shot LLM embeddings to measure their impact comprehensively. Although findings suggest the raw data features still prevail in medical ML tasks, zero-shot LLM embeddings demonstrate competitive results, suggesting a promising avenue for future research in medical applications.

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 · 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-emnlp.311

Cites

0 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?

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

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. Mubashara Akhtar, Abhilash Shankarampeta, Vivek Gupta, Arpit Patil, Oana Cocarascu, and Elena Sim- perl. 2023. Exploring the numerical reasoning capa- bilities of language models: A comprehensive anal- ysis on tabular data. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 15391-15405.
  2. Emily Alsentzer, John Murphy, William Boag, Wei- Hung Weng, Di Jindi, Tristan Naumann, and Matthew McDermott. 2019. Publicly available clini- cal bert embeddings. In Proceedings of the 2nd Clin- ical Natural Language Processing Workshop, pages 72-78.
  3. Forrest Bao, Ruixuan Tu, Ge Luo, Yinfei Yang, Hebi Li, Minghui Qiu, Youbiao He, and Cen Chen. 2023. Do- casref: An empirical study on repurposing reference- based summary quality metrics as reference-free met- rics. In Findings of the Association for Computa- tional Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 1226-1235.
  4. Fereshteh S Bashiri, John R Caskey, Anoop Mayam- purath, Nicole Dussault, Jay Dumanian, Sivasubra- manium V Bhavani, Kyle A Carey, Emily R Gilbert, Christopher J Winslow, Nirav S Shah, et al. 2022. Identifying infected patients using semi-supervised and transfer learning. Journal of the American Medi- cal Informatics Association, 29(10):1696-1704.
  5. Sivasubramanium V Bhavani, Zachary Lonjers, Kyle A Carey, Majid Afshar, Emily R Gilbert, Nirav S Shah, Elbert S Huang, and Matthew M Churpek. 2020. The development and validation of a machine learning model to predict bacteremia and fungemia in hospi- talized patients using electronic health record data. Critical care medicine, 48(11):e1020-e1028.
  6. Wenbing Chang, Yinglai Liu, Yiyong Xiao, Xinglong Yuan, Xingxing Xu, Siyue Zhang, and Shenghan Zhou. 2019. A machine-learning-based prediction method for hypertension outcomes based on medical data. Diagnostics, 9(4):178.
  7. Tianqi Chen and Carlos Guestrin. 2016. Xgboost: A scalable tree boosting system. In Proceedings of the 22nd acm sigkdd international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining, pages 785- 794.
  8. M. M. Churpek, K. A. Carey, A. Snyder, C. J. Winslow, E. Gilbert, N. S. Shah, B. W. Patterson, M. Afshar, A. Weiss, D. N. Amin, D. J. Rhodes, and D. P. Edel- son. 2024a. Multicenter development and prospec- tive validation of ecartv5: A gradient boosted ma- chine learning early warning score. medRxiv. · DOI
  9. Matthew M Churpek, Ryan Ingebristen, Kyle A Carey, Saieesh A Rao, Emily Murnin, Tonela Qyli, Made- line K Oguss, Jamila Picart, Leena Penumalee, Ben- jamin D Follman, et al. 2024b. Causes, diagnostic testing, and treatments related to clinical deteriora- tion events among high-risk ward patients. medRxiv, pages 2024-02.
  10. Matthew M Churpek, Trevor C Yuen, Christopher Winslow, Ari A Robicsek, David O Meltzer, Robert D Gibbons, and Dana P Edelson. 2014. Multicenter de- velopment and validation of a risk stratification tool for ward patients. American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 190(6):649-655.
  11. Hong-Fei Deng, Ming-Wei Sun, Yu Wang, Jun Zeng, Ting Yuan, Ting Li, Di-Huan Li, Wei Chen, Ping Zhou, Qi Wang, et al. 2022. Evaluating machine learning models for sepsis prediction: A systematic review of methodologies. Iscience, 25(1).
  12. Tim Dettmers, Artidoro Pagnoni, Ari Holtzman, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2024. Qlora: Efficient finetuning of quantized llms. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 36.
  13. Harvey Fu, Qinyuan Ye, Albert Xu, Xiang Ren, and Robin Jia. 2023. Estimating large language model ca- pabilities without labeled test data. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 9530-9546.
  14. Iker García-Ferrero, Rodrigo Agerri, Aitziber Atutxa Salazar, Elena Cabrio, Iker de la Iglesia, Alberto Lavelli, Bernardo Magnini, Benjamin Molinet, Jo- hana Ramirez-Romero, German Rigau, et al. 2024. Medmt5: An open-source multilingual text-to-text llm for the medical domain. In Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computa- tional Linguistics, Language Resources and Evalua- tion (LREC-COLING 2024), pages 11165-11177.
  15. Hila Gonen, Srini Iyer, Terra Blevins, Noah A Smith, and Luke Zettlemoyer. 2023. Demystifying prompts in language models via perplexity estimation. In The 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing.
  16. Stefan Hegselmann, Alejandro Buendia, Hunter Lang, Monica Agrawal, Xiaoyi Jiang, and David Sontag. 2023. Tabllm: Few-shot classification of tabular data with large language models. In International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Statistics, pages 5549-5581. PMLR.
  17. Nianzong Hou, Mingzhe Li, Lu He, Bing Xie, Lin Wang, Rumin Zhang, Yong Yu, Xiaodong Sun, Zhengsheng Pan, and Kai Wang. 2020. Predicting 30-days mor- tality for mimic-iii patients with sepsis-3: a machine learning approach using xgboost. Journal of transla- tional medicine, 18:1-14.
  18. Alistair EW Johnson, Tom J Pollard, Lu Shen, Li-wei H Lehman, Mengling Feng, Mohammad Ghassemi, Benjamin Moody, Peter Szolovits, Leo Anthony Celi, and Roger G Mark. 2016. Mimic-iii, a freely accessi- ble critical care database. Scientific data, 3(1):1-9.
  19. Patricia Kipnis, Benjamin J Turk, David A Wulf, Juan Carlos LaGuardia, Vincent Liu, Matthew M Churpek, Santiago Romero-Brufau, and Gabriel J Escobar. 2016. Development and validation of an electronic medical record-based alert score for detec- tion of inpatient deterioration outside the icu. Journal of biomedical informatics, 64:10-19.
  20. Adrienne Kline, Hanyin Wang, Yikuan Li, Saya Dennis, Meghan Hutch, Zhenxing Xu, Fei Wang, Feixiong Cheng, and Yuan Luo. 2022. Multimodal machine learning in precision health: A scoping review. npj Digital Medicine, 5(1):171.
  21. Jinghui Lu, Dongsheng Zhu, Weidong Han, Rui Zhao, Brian Mac Namee, and Fei Tan. 2023. What makes pre-trained language models better zero-shot learn- ers? In Proceedings of the 61st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Vol- ume 1: Long Papers), pages 2288-2303.
  22. Qiuhao Lu, Dejing Dou, and Thien Huu Nguyen. 2021. Parameter-efficient domain knowledge integration from multiple sources for biomedical pre-trained lan- guage models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2021, pages 3855-3865.
  23. Chao Pang, Xinzhuo Jiang, Krishna S Kalluri, Matthew Spotnitz, RuiJun Chen, Adler Perotte, and Karthik Natarajan. 2021. Cehr-bert: Incorporating temporal information from structured ehr data to improve pre- diction tasks. In Machine Learning for Health, pages 239-260.
  24. PMLR.
  25. Ori Ram, Liat Bezalel, Adi Zicher, Yonatan Belinkov, Jonathan Berant, and Amir Globerson. 2023. What are you token about? dense retrieval as distributions over the vocabulary. In Proceedings of the 61st An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 2481- 2498.
  26. Chen Shani, Jilles Vreeken, and Dafna Shahaf. 2023. Towards concept-aware large language models. In Findings of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 13158-13170.
  27. Yuqi Si, Jingcheng Du, Zhao Li, Xiaoqian Jiang, Tim- othy Miller, Fei Wang, W Jim Zheng, and Kirk Roberts. 2021. Deep representation learning of pa- tient data from electronic health records (ehr): A sys- tematic review. Journal of biomedical informatics, 115:103671.
  28. Luis R Soenksen, Yu Ma, Cynthia Zeng, Leonard Bous- sioux, Kimberly Villalobos Carballo, Liangyuan Na, Holly M Wiberg, Michael L Li, Ignacio Fuentes, and Dimitris Bertsimas. 2022. Integrated multimodal artificial intelligence framework for healthcare appli- cations. NPJ digital medicine, 5(1):149.
  29. Shirly Wang, Matthew BA McDermott, Geeticka Chauhan, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Michael C Hughes, and Tristan Naumann. 2020. Mimic-extract: A data extraction, preprocessing, and representation pipeline for mimic-iii. In Proceedings of the ACM conference on health, inference, and learning, pages 222-235.
  30. Bowen Yu, Cheng Fu, Haiyang Yu, Fei Huang, and Yongbin Li. 2023. Unified language representation for question answering over text, tables, and images. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL 2023, pages 4756-4765.
  31. Daniel Zeiberg, Tejas Prahlad, Brahmajee K Nal- lamothu, Theodore J Iwashyna, Jenna Wiens, and Michael W Sjoding. 2019. Machine learning for pa- tient risk stratification for acute respiratory distress syndrome. PloS one, 14(3):e0214465.
  32. Bowen Zhao, Changkai Ji, Yuejie Zhang, Wen He, Ying- wen Wang, Qing Wang, Rui Feng, and Xiaobo Zhang. 2023. Large language models are complex table parsers. In Proceedings of the 2023 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing, pages 14786-14802.
  33. Mingyu Zheng, Hao Yang, Wenbin Jiang, Zheng Lin, Yajuan Lyu, Qiaoqiao She, and Weiping Wang. 2023. Chain-of-thought reasoning in tabular language mod- els. In Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2023, pages 11006-11019, Sin- gapore. Association for Computational Linguistics. · DOI
  34. Hui Zou and Trevor Hastie. 2005. Regularization and variable selection via the elastic net. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series B: Statistical Method- ology, 67(2):301-320.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 8

Metadata

Authors
Gao, Y., Myers, S., Chen, S., Dligach, D., Miller, T. A., Bitterman, D., Churpek, M., & Afshar, M.
Affiliations
  • University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • Loyola University Chicago (US)
  • Harvard University (US)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP 2024
Published
2024
Volume
2024
Pages
5414-5428
OpenAlex
W4404781586
Cited by
8
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3
FWCI
2.36
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EMNLP (Findings of EMNLP) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (R01HL157262)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA051464)
  • National Cancer Institute (U54CA274516, R01CA294033)
  • U.S. National Library of Medicine (K99LM014308, R01LM012973, R00LM014308)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language model embeddings, tabular data, electronic health records, length of stay prediction, mortality prediction, zero-shot learning, few-shot learning, prompt engineering, feature extraction, machine learning in medicine

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