Cited by 83Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTopic Modeling

Scientific evidence for clinical text summarization using large language models: scoping review

Open access
Bednarczyk, Lydie, Reichenpfader, Daniel, Gaudet-Blavignac, Christophe, Ette, Amon Kenna, Zaghir, Jamil, Zheng, Yuanyuan, Bensahla, Adel, Bjelogrlic, Mina +1 more·2025·Journal of Medical Internet Research

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Information overload in electronic health records requires effective solutions to alleviate clinicians' administrative tasks. Automatically summarizing clinical text has gained significant attention with the rise of large language models. While individual studies show optimism, a structured overview of the research landscape is lacking. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to present the current state of the art on clinical text summarization using large language models, evaluate the level of evidence in existing research and assess the applicability of performance findings in clinical settings. METHODS: This scoping review complied with the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. Literature published between January 1, 2019, and June 18, 2024, was identified from 5 databases: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, IEEE Xplore, and ACM Digital Library. Studies were excluded if they did not describe transformer-based models, did not focus on clinical text summarization, did not engage with free-text data, were not original research, were nonretrievable, were not peer-reviewed, or were not in English, French, Spanish, or German. Data related to study context and characteristics, scope of research, and evaluation methodologies were systematically collected and analyzed by 3 authors independently. RESULTS: A total of 30 original studies were included in the analysis. All used observational retrospective designs, mainly using real patient data (n=28, 93%). The research landscape demonstrated a narrow research focus, often centered on summarizing radiology reports (n=17, 57%), primarily involving data from the intensive care unit (n=15, 50%) of US-based institutions (n=19, 73%), in English (n=26, 87%). This focus aligned with the frequent reliance on the open-source Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care dataset (n=15, 50%). Summarization methodologies predominantly involved abstractive approaches (n=17, 57%) on single-document inputs (n=4, 13%) with unstructured data (n=13, 43%), yet reporting on methodological details remained inconsistent across studies. Model selection involved both open-source models (n=26, 87%) and proprietary models (n=7, 23%). Evaluation frameworks were highly heterogeneous. All studies conducted internal validation, but external validation (n=2, 7%), failure analysis (n=6, 20%), and patient safety risks analysis (n=1, 3%) were infrequent, and none reported bias assessment. Most studies used both automated metrics and human evaluation (n=16, 53%), while 10 (33%) used only automated metrics, and 4 (13%) only human evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Key barriers hinder the translation of current research into trustworthy, clinically valid applications. Current research remains exploratory and limited in scope, with many applications yet to be explored. Performance assessments often lack reliability, and clinical impact evaluations are insufficient raising concerns about model utility, safety, fairness, and data privacy. Advancing the field requires more robust evaluation frameworks, a broader research scope, and a stronger focus on real-world applicability.

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 · 10.2196/68998

Cites

89 of 89 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [18]Vaswani A Shazeer N Parmar N Attention is All you Need Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 2017 2024-07-23 United Kingdom Curran Associates, Inc https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2017/hash/3f5ee243547dee91fbd053c1c4a845aa-Abstract.html
  2. [23]Ajad A Saini T Niranjan K Rad-formertructuring radiology reports using transformers* 2023 5th International Conference on Recent Advances in Information Technology (RAIT) March 3, 2023 Dhanbad, India 1 6
  3. [44]Cai P Liu F Bajracharya A Sills J Kapoor A Liu W Berlowitz D Levy D Pradhan R Yu H Generation of patient after-visit summaries to support physicians 2022 Proceedings of the 29th International Conference on Computational Linguistics October 1, 2022 Gyeongju, Republic of Korea 6234 6247
  4. [76]Bommasani R Hudson DA Adeli E Altman R Arora S von Arx S Bernstein MS Bohg J Bosselut A Brunskill E Brynjolfsson E Buch S Card D Castellon R Chatterji N Chen A Creel K Davis JQ Demszky D Donahue C Doumbouya M Durmus E Ermon S Etchemendy J Ethayarajh K Fei-Fei L Finn C Gale T Gillespie L Goel K Goodman N On the opportunities and risks of foundation models ArXiv. Preprint posted on July 12, 2022 2021

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bednarczyk, L., Reichenpfader, D., Gaudet-Blavignac, C., Ette, A. K., Zaghir, J., Zheng, Y., Bensahla, A., Bjelogrlic, M., & Lovis, C.
Affiliations
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • University of Geneva (CH)
Corresponding author
Bednarczyk, Lydie
Venue
Journal of Medical Internet Research
Published
2025-05-15
Volume
27
Pages
e68998
ISSN
1438-8871 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4408354096
Cited by
83
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 68 · 2025: 15
FWCI
7.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Internet Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Archive ouverte UNIGE (University of Geneva) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • BFH: ARBOR
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
clinical text summarization, large language models, electronic health records, information overload, radiology report summarization, intensive care unit, abstractive summarization, transformer models, MIMIC-III, evaluation framework, clinical implementation, patient safety, clinical decision support, administrative burden reduction, failure analysis, external validation
MeSH terms
Large Language Models, Humans, Language, Natural Language Processing, Electronic Health Records

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