Use of SNOMED CT in Large Language Models: Scoping Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Large language models (LLMs) have substantially advanced natural language processing (NLP) capabilities but often struggle with knowledge-driven tasks in specialized domains such as biomedicine. Integrating biomedical knowledge sources such as SNOMED CT into LLMs may enhance their performance on biomedical tasks. However, the methodologies and effectiveness of incorporating SNOMED CT into LLMs have not been systematically reviewed. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to examine how SNOMED CT is integrated into LLMs, focusing on (1) the types and components of LLMs being integrated with SNOMED CT, (2) which contents of SNOMED CT are being integrated, and (3) whether this integration improves LLM performance on NLP tasks. METHODS: Following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines, we searched ACM Digital Library, ACL Anthology, IEEE Xplore, PubMed, and Embase for relevant studies published from 2018 to 2023. Studies were included if they incorporated SNOMED CT into LLM pipelines for natural language understanding or generation tasks. Data on LLM types, SNOMED CT integration methods, end tasks, and performance metrics were extracted and synthesized. RESULTS: The review included 37 studies. Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers and its biomedical variants were the most commonly used LLMs. Three main approaches for integrating SNOMED CT were identified: (1) incorporating SNOMED CT into LLM inputs (28/37, 76%), primarily using concept descriptions to expand training corpora; (2) integrating SNOMED CT into additional fusion modules (5/37, 14%); and (3) using SNOMED CT as an external knowledge retriever during inference (5/37, 14%). The most frequent end task was medical concept normalization (15/37, 41%), followed by entity extraction or typing and classification. While most studies (17/19, 89%) reported performance improvements after SNOMED CT integration, only a small fraction (19/37, 51%) provided direct comparisons. The reported gains varied widely across different metrics and tasks, ranging from 0.87% to 131.66%. However, some studies showed either no improvement or a decline in certain performance metrics. CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates diverse approaches for integrating SNOMED CT into LLMs, with a focus on using concept descriptions to enhance biomedical language understanding and generation. While the results suggest potential benefits of SNOMED CT integration, the lack of standardized evaluation methods and comprehensive performance reporting hinders definitive conclusions about its effectiveness. Future research should prioritize consistent reporting of performance comparisons and explore more sophisticated methods for incorporating SNOMED CT's relational structure into LLMs. In addition, the biomedical NLP community should develop standardized evaluation frameworks to better assess the impact of ontology integration on LLM performance.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».