Abstract
Multi-label classification of unstructured electronic health records (EHR) is challenging due to the semantic complexity of textual data. Identifying the most effective machine learning method for EHR classification is useful in real-world clinical settings. Advances in natural language processing (NLP) using large language models (LLMs) offer promising solutions. Therefore, this experimental research aims to test the effects of zero-shot and few-shot learning prompting, with and without parameter-efficient fine-tuning (PEFT) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) of LLMs, on the multi-label classification of unstructured EHR data from residential aged care facilities (RACFs) in Australia. The four clinical tasks examined are agitation in dementia, depression in dementia, frailty index, and malnutrition risk factors, using the Llama 3.1-8B. Performance evaluation includes accuracy, macro-averaged precision, recall, and F1 score, supported by non-parametric statistical analyses. Results indicate that both zero-shot and few-shot learning, regardless of the use of PEFT and RAG, demonstrate equivalent performance across the clinical tasks when using the same prompting template. Few-shot learning consistently outperforms zero-shot learning when neither PEFT nor RAG is applied. Notably, PEFT significantly enhances model performance in both zero-shot and few-shot learning; however, RAG improves performance only in few-shot learning. After PEFT, the performance of zero-shot learning is equal to that of few-shot learning across clinical tasks. Additionally, few-shot learning with RAG surpasses zero-shot learning with RAG, while no significant difference exists between few-shot learning with RAG and zero-shot learning with PEFT. These findings offer crucial insights into LLMs for researchers, practitioners, and stakeholders utilizing LLMs in clinical document analysis.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of Wollongong approved the study (Ethics Number 2019/159).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
We updated the paper according to the reviewer's feedback. We added some additional experiments and changed the manual evaluation to a automatic evaluation in the study. Also we used the latest large language model (Llama 3.1 8B) for the experiment.
Data Availability
Data is not available.
