PreprintCited by 15Biomedical Text Mining and OntologiesTopic ModelingMachine Learning in Healthcare

Accurate Medical Named Entity Recognition Through Specialized NLP Models

Open access
Hu, Jiacheng, Bao, Runyuan, Lin, Yang, Zhang, Hanchao, Xiang, Yanlin·2024·arXiv

Abstract

This study evaluated the effect of BioBERT in medical text processing for the task of medical named entity recognition. Through comparative experiments with models such as BERT, ClinicalBERT, SciBERT, and BlueBERT, the results showed that BioBERT achieved the best performance in both precision and F1 score, verifying its applicability and superiority in the medical field. BioBERT enhances its ability to understand professional terms and complex medical texts through pre-training on biomedical data, providing a powerful tool for medical information extraction and clinical decision support. The study also explored the privacy and compliance challenges of BioBERT when processing medical data, and proposed future research directions for combining other medical-specific models to improve generalization and robustness. With the development of deep learning technology, the potential of BioBERT in application fields such as intelligent medicine, personalized treatment, and disease prediction will be further expanded. Future research can focus on the real-time and interpretability of the model to promote its widespread application in the medical field.

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2412.08255

Cites

35 of 35 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?

  • Traditional NLP pipelines for automated extraction require task-specific training data and do not generalize to the diverse parameter types in QSP modeling.

    “Traditional NLP pipelines for automated extraction require task‐specific training data [11, 12, 13] and do not generalize to the diverse parameter types in QSP modeling.”

    From Structured Schemas for Provenance‐Rich, <scp>LLM</scp> ‐Assisted <scp>QSP</scp> Model Calibration (2026) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Experimental setup section (page unavailable) describes training BioBERT on annotated medical-entity data, and the Model section says ClinicalBERT’s lack of training data from broader medical literature limits its generalization. These passages support the importance of task-relevant data, but they do not establish that traditional NLP pipelines generally require task-specific training data. The QSP-specific generalization statement follows the citations and appears to be the citing authors’ own application of that point. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Traditional NLP pipelines for automated extraction require task-specific training data and do not generalize to the diverse parameter types in QSP modeling.

    “Traditional NLP pipelines for automated extraction require task-specific training data11,12,13 and do not generalize to the diverse parameter types in QSP modeling.”

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: 2

  1. [2]2. S. Tirpude, A. Singh, R. Kumar, and D. Patel, "3511 Named Entity Recognition Using BioBERT," Multifaceted Approaches for Data Acquisition, Processing & Communication, pp. 76, 2024.
  2. [15]15. Z. Xu, W. Zhang, Y. Sun and Z. Lin, "Multi-Source Data-Driven LSTM Framework for Enhanced Stock Price Prediction and Volatility Analysis", Proceedings of the 2024 3rd International Conference on Computer Technology and Software, pp. 8-15, 2024.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hu, J., Bao, R., Lin, Y., Zhang, H., & Xiang, Y.
Affiliations
  • Tulane University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • New York University (US)
  • University of Houston (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
Pages
578-582
OpenAlex
W4408401882
Cited by
14
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 3
FWCI
25.30
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • IEEE International Conference on Frontiers Technology of Information and Computer (ICFTIC) (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
medical named entity recognition, BioBERT, biomedical text processing, BERT, ClinicalBERT, SciBERT, clinical information extraction, clinical decision support, model generalization

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