Extracting smoking history from clinical notes for lung cancer screening decision support: comparing a structured-judgment model with general-purpose large language models
Wright, A.; Liu, S.; Wright, A. P.
Show abstract
Objective: To compare the accuracy, cost, and speed of a low-cost, non-generative structured-judgment model and four general-purpose large language models (LLMs) for extracting smoking status, pack-years, and quit date from clinical notes to support lung cancer screening (LCS) clinical decision support (CDS). Materials and Methods: We built a synthetic, shareable benchmark of 3,000 outpatient notes in three conditions: 1,000 template-generated notes, 1,000 realistic, ``messy'' notes written by an LLM from structured facts, and 1,000 ``messy'' notes that required complex arithmetic to determine pack-years and quit dates. Ground truth reference labels were programmatically generated before each note was created. We compared TypeSafe Jev 1.13 with Claude Haiku 4.5, Claude Sonnet 5, GPT-6 Luna and GPT-6 Sol, each using an identical structured output schema. We determined United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2021 and American Cancer Society (ACS) 2023 eligibility from each system's output in code. Results: Jev made the correct eligibility decision for 99.1%, 99.9%, and 94.4% of notes in the three conditions, compared with 97.8%, 98.4%, and 98.1% for Haiku, 100.0%, 99.6%, and 99.8% for Sonnet, 99.7%, 98.8%, and 98.5% for Luna, and 100.0%, 99.8%, and 99.6% for Sol. In the complex condition, Jev produced 27 false positive and 14 false negative screening flags per 1,000 notes, the most of any system. Luna cost $0.12 to $0.21 per 1,000 notes and Jev $0.61 to $0.64, compared with $2.44 to $4.22 for Sol, $3.37 to $4.43 for Haiku, and $3.76 to $6.61 for Sonnet. Jev was the fastest system (median 0.45 to 1.21 seconds per note, compared with 1.71 to 3.50 seconds for the others). Discussion: All models tested had high accuracy. The structured-judgment model had the lowest latency, which could allow for synchronous use in clinical decision support systems rather than batched, cached invocation. The cost of the structured-judgment model was low, but the newest cost-efficient LLM, Luna, was less expensive and more accurate on the complex notes, though its latency was higher. Accuracy, latency, and cost are all moving quickly as new models are released. Conclusion: Fast, low-cost language models could make real-time, note-based CDS practical, and current models are highly accurate. Prices and capabilities are changing rapidly, so continuous benchmarking and system updates are essential.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- From Tool to Teammate: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinician-AI Collaborative Workflows for Diagnosis 94%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 94%
- A typology of physician input approaches to using AI chatbots for clinical decision-making: a mixed methods study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Temporal Relationship of Computed and Structured Diagnoses in Electronic Health Record Data 92%
- Automated abstraction of clinical parameters of multiple myeloma from real-world clinical notes using large language models 92%
- Large language models (GPT-5, Grok-4, Claude Opus 4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro) achieved textbook-level accuracy on the Japanese medical licensing examination by 2025: A comparative study 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Automating Evaluation of LLM-generated Responses to Patient Questions about Rare Diseases 94%
- Natural Language Processing for Automated Annotation of Medication Mentions in Primary Care Visit Conversations 93%
- A Study of Calibration as a Measurement of Trustworthiness of Large Language Models in Biomedical Research 93%
"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.