Investigating the Impact of Prompt Engineering on the Performance of Large Language Models for Standardizing Obstetric Diagnosis Text: Comparative Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The accumulation of vast electronic medical records (EMRs) through medical informatization creates significant research value, particularly in obstetrics. Diagnostic standardization across different health care institutions and regions is vital for medical data analysis. Large language models (LLMs) have been extensively used for various medical tasks. Prompt engineering is key to use LLMs effectively. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to evaluate and compare the performance of LLMs with various prompt engineering techniques on the task of standardizing obstetric diagnostic terminology using real-world obstetric data. METHODS: The paper describes a 4-step approach used for mapping diagnoses in electronic medical records to the International Classification of Diseases, 10th revision, observation domain. First, similarity measures were used for mapping the diagnoses. Second, candidate mapping terms were collected based on similarity scores above a threshold, to be used as the training data set. For generating optimal mapping terms, we used two LLMs (ChatGLM2 and Qwen-14B-Chat [QWEN]) for zero-shot learning in step 3. Finally, a performance comparison was conducted by using 3 pretrained bidirectional encoder representations from transformers (BERTs), including BERT, whole word masking BERT, and momentum contrastive learning with BERT (MC-BERT), for unsupervised optimal mapping term generation in the fourth step. RESULTS: -score improved by 5%, with precision increasing by 7.9%, outperforming the zero-shot method. Likewise, ChatGLM2 delivered similar rates of accurately generated responses. During the analysis, the BERT series served as a comparative model with comparable results. Among the 3 models, MC-BERT demonstrated the highest level of performance. However, the differences among the versions of BERT in this study were relatively insignificant. CONCLUSIONS: After applying LLMs to standardize diagnoses and designing 4 different prompts, we compared the results to those generated by the BERT model. Our findings indicate that QWEN prompts largely outperformed the other prompts, with precision comparable to that of the BERT model. These results demonstrate the potential of unsupervised approaches in improving the efficiency of aligning diagnostic terms in daily research and uncovering hidden information values in patient data.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".