MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412124420 · doi:10.2196/71176

Language Models for Multilabel Document Classification of Surgical Concepts in Exploratory Laparotomy Operative Notes: Algorithm Development Study

2025· article· en· W4412124420 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jeremy A. Balch, Sasank Desaraju, Victoria Nolan, Divya Vellanki, Timothy R. Buchanan, Lindsey Brinkley, Yordan Penev, Ahmet Bilgili, Aashay Patel, Corinne E Chatham, David M Vanderbilt, Rayon Uddin, Azra Bihorac, Philip A. Efron, Tyler J. Loftus, Protiva Rahman, Benjamin Shickel

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Informatics · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDigital Imaging in Medicine
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of General Medical Sciences
KeywordsExploratory laparotomyComputer scienceNatural language processingDevelopment (topology)Artificial intelligenceInformation retrievalAlgorithmMedicineSurgeryMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Operative notes are frequently mined for surgical concepts in clinical care, research, quality improvement, and billing, often requiring hours of manual extraction. These notes are typically analyzed at the document level to determine the presence or absence of specific procedures or findings (eg, whether a hand-sewn anastomosis was performed or contamination occurred). Extracting several binary classification labels simultaneously is a multilabel classification problem. Traditional natural language processing approaches-bag-of-words (BoW) and term frequency-inverse document frequency (tf-idf) with linear classifiers-have been used previously for this task but are now being augmented or replaced by large language models (LLMs). However, few studies have examined their utility in surgery. Objective: We developed and evaluated LLMs for the purpose of expediting data extraction from surgical notes. Methods: A total of 388 exploratory laparotomy notes from a single institution were annotated for 21 concepts related to intraoperative findings, intraoperative techniques, and closure techniques. Annotation consistency was measured using the Cohen κ statistic. Data were preprocessed to include only the description of the procedure. We compared the evolution of document classification technologies from BoW and tf-idf to encoder-only (Clinical-Longformer) and decoder-only (Llama 3) transformer models. Multilabel classification performance was evaluated with 5-fold cross-validation with F1-score and hamming loss (HL). We experimented with and without context. Errors were assessed by manual review. Code and implementation instructions may be found on GitHub. Results: The prevalence of labels ranged from 0.05 (colostomy, ileostomy, active bleed from named vessel) to 0.50 (running fascial closure). Llama 3.3 was the overall best-performing model (micro F1-score 0.88, 5-fold range: 0.88-0.89; HL 0.11, 5-fold range: 0.11-0.12). The BoW model (micro F1-score 0.68, 5-fold range: 0.64-0.71; HL 0.14, 5-fold range: 0.13-0.16) and Clinical-Longformer (micro F1-score 0.73, 5-fold range: 0.70-0.74; HL 0.11, 5-fold range: 0.10-0.12) had overall similar performance, with tf-idf models trailing (micro F1-score 0.57, 5-fold range: 0.55-0.59; HL 0.27, 5-fold range: 0.25-0.29). F1-scores varied across concepts in the Llama model, ranging from 0.30 (5-fold range: 0.23-0.39) for class III contamination to 0.92 (5-fold range: 0.98-0.84) for bowel resection. Context enhanced Llama's performance, adding an average of 0.16 improvement to the F1-scores. Error analysis demonstrated semantic nuances and edge cases within operative notes, particularly when patients had references to prior operations in their operative notes or simultaneous operations with other surgical services. Conclusions: Off-the-shelf autoregressive LLMs outperformed fined-tuned, encoder-only transformers and traditional natural language processing techniques in classifying operative notes. Multilabel classification with LLMs may streamline retrospective reviews in surgery, though further refinements are required prior to reliable use in research and quality improvement.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.366 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical InformaticsSame topicDigital Imaging in MedicineFrench-language works237,207