ClinStigma: A Clinician-Guided Framework for Developing Synthetic Benchmarks of Contextual Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation
Izzo, J. A.; McIntyre, A. M.; Nguyen, J.; Bashaw, D.; Torrance, C. A.; Foster, J.
Show abstract
Objective Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to generate, summarize, and evaluate clinical documentation, yet standardized methods for evaluating nuanced, context-dependent clinical language remain limited. Existing approaches rely primarily on annotated clinical corpora or keyword-based methods, restricting reproducibility, public dissemination, and systematic comparison across models. We present ClinStigma, a clinician-guided framework for constructing, annotating, and evaluating synthetic benchmarks of contextual stigmatizing language, demonstrated through ClinStigma-SUD, its inaugural implementation for substance use disorder documentation. Materials and Methods Candidate clinical sentences were generated using a frontier language model and iteratively reviewed according to a clinician-developed annotation rubric refined through expert review in stigmatizing language. The resulting benchmark intentionally incorporates explicit stigmatizing, neutral, and contextually ambiguous ("gray-zone") documentation requiring clinical reasoning rather than keyword recognition. Three locally deployed open-weight LLMs were evaluated using zero-shot inference, followed by external evaluation using independently annotated clinical documentation from MIMIC-IV. Results ClinStigma-SUD consists of 500 clinician-adjudicated synthetic clinical documentation sentences. Inter-rater agreement was 98.8% across the full benchmark (Cohen's {kappa} = 0.976) and 94.0% within the intentionally ambiguous subset ({kappa} = 0.880). Under zero-shot prompting, binary accuracy ranged from 84.8% to 91.8% across evaluated models, while F1 for the ambiguous (gray) class ranged from 0.038 to 0.423. Zero-shot external evaluation on 3,716 annotated examples from the independently annotated Harrigian MIMIC-IV corpus yielded 84.4% accuracy (84.4% balanced accuracy; macro F1 0.824), against a 69.9% majority-class baseline. Stigmatizing-class F1 was 0.879 in the substance-related subgroup and 0.883 in the full external corpus. Discussion and Conclusion ClinStigma establishes a reproducible clinician-guided framework for developing synthetic evaluation benchmarks for contextual clinical language. By combining structured clinical expertise, explicit annotation guidance, synthetic benchmark generation, and external evaluation, the framework enables open, privacy-preserving evaluation of language models while providing a scalable foundation for benchmark development across additional clinical specialties, including obstetrics, emergency medicine, and mental health.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 93%
- From Tool to Teammate: A Randomized Controlled Trial of Clinician-AI Collaborative Workflows for Diagnosis 93%
- Interpretable Fine-tuned Large Language Models Facilitate Making Genetic Test Decisions for Rare Diseases 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Annotation-preserving machine translation of English corpora to validate Dutch clinical concept extraction tools 93%
- Beyond Metrics to Methods: A Scoping Review of Large Language Models for Detection of Social Drivers of Health in Clinical Notes 92%
- Empowering Personalized Pharmacogenomics with Generative AI Solutions 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development and Evaluation of Machine Learning Models for the Detection of Emergency Department Patients with Opioid Misuse from Clinical Notes 92%
- Design and Implementation of an End-to-End AI-Driven Colonoscopy Recall Workflow at Scale 92%
- Long COVID symptoms from Reddit: Characterizing post-COVID syndrome from patient reports 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluating Anti-LGBTQIA+ Medical Bias in Large Language Models 94%
- Natural language processing to evaluate texting conversations between patients and healthcare providers during COVID-19 Home-Based Care in Rwanda at scale 92%
- Hospital-wide Natural Language Processing summarising the health data of 1 million patients 90%
"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.