Clinical Note Comparison and Data Retrieval Via Embedding Vectors: Model Selection, Metrics, and Convergence
Dahlberg, A. C. H.; Tapiola, O.; Luisto, R.; Puranen, T.; Sanmark, E.; Vartiainen, V.
Show abstract
Background: Embedding models are an integral part of generative AI architectures, transforming text into embedding vectors that represent semantic content in numerical form. Despite their central role, their performance in clinical settings remains underexplored. We evaluate embedding models across two tasks: semantic difference detection in clinical texts, and data retrieval from patient records. Methods: Eight models were applied to synthetic discharge summaries in English, Finnish, and Swedish. Semantic sensitivity was assessed by introducing controlled perturbations (deletion, modification, and paraphrasing) at three levels of severity; cosine similarity, and L1 and Euclidean distances were computed between the vectors of the original and perturbed texts. Partial vectors were compared to explore dimensionality reduction. Two models with the biggest contrast in semantic difference detection were evaluated on retrieval of relevant information from real Finnish vascular surgery records. Results: Embedding vectors captured semantic differences in clinical text: content deletion and modification produced larger increases in vector distance than paraphrasing. On average, models detected the direction of semantic change correctly, but case-level performance varied considerably. Qwen3-Embedding-8B was the only model with zero directional errors, while multilingual-E5-large erred in 13.8% of cases. In data retrieval, Qwen3-Embedding-8B again outperformed multilingual-E5-large, though the margin was narrower: sufficiency scores were 3.25 vs. 3.17 out of 5 for the first query and 2.25 vs. 1.15 out of 5 for the second query. For some models, as few as 0.6-1.2% of dimensions sufficed to replicate full-vector accuracy; principal component analysis and coordinate-level analysis did not account for this finding. Conclusions: Our results show that the choice of embedding model is important: performance differences between models can be large enough to determine whether clinically relevant information reaches the end user, and model weaknesses can be both task-specific and context-dependent.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Building Large-Scale Registries from Unstructured Clinical Notes using a Low-Resource Natural Language Processing Pipeline 97%
- Enriching Representation Learning Using 53 Million Patient Notes through Human Phenotype Ontology Embedding 95%
- Comparing neural language models for medical concept representation and patient trajectory prediction 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- LCD Benchmark: Long Clinical Document Benchmark on Mortality Prediction for Language Models 96%
- Annotation-preserving machine translation of English corpora to validate Dutch clinical concept extraction tools 95%
- A Novel Question-Answering Framework for Automated Abstract Screening Using Large Language Models 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Semantic Similarity Methods for Comparison of Text-derived Phenotype Profiles 95%
- MelAnalyze: Fact-Checking Melatonin claims using Large Language Models and Natural Language Inference 94%
- Ontology-based expansion of virtual gene panels to improve diagnostic efficiency for rare genetic diseases 93%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.