arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language · · 4 min read

An ambiguity taxonomy for evaluating large language model performance on clinical registry abstraction: a multi-site prospective study

Mirrored from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language for archival readability. Support the source by reading on the original site.

Computer Science > Computation and Language

arXiv:2608.20373 (cs)
[Submitted on 23 Jun 2026]

Title:An ambiguity taxonomy for evaluating large language model performance on clinical registry abstraction: a multi-site prospective study

View a PDF of the paper titled An ambiguity taxonomy for evaluating large language model performance on clinical registry abstraction: a multi-site prospective study, by James Matheson and 3 other authors
View PDF HTML (experimental)
Abstract:Objective: To evaluate large language model (LLM) performance on unprocessed electronic medical record (EMR) data for clinical registry abstraction. Methods: We evaluated LLM performance answering registry questions for the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry (ACC NCDR). In a pilot study at an academic medical center, the model identified candidate data sources for each registry question and experienced abstractors used these results to define question-specific document sets. In a validation study at a second center with a second ACC NCDR registry, the LLM answered questions using the question-specific document sets. Before reviewing any output, two abstractors independently established the ground truth and assigned each question to one of six categories, ordered by the ambiguity and clinical reasoning required to resolve it: Medication/Event Flag, Binary Clinical Presence, Administrative, Quantitative Laboratory/Physiologic, Clinical Interpretation, and Event Timing. Results: The analytical sample comprised 9,430 abstractor answers reconciled to 4,715 consensus answers (501 pilot; 4,214 validation). In the pilot, candidate data sources per question averaged between 14.6 (SD 13.9) for demographics and 89.2 (SD 56.1) for history and risk factors. In validation, human inter-rater agreement was approximately 98\% while 87\% of LLM answers exactly matched consensus, 2\% partially, and 9\% did not. Mean question-level accuracy was 91.5\% (SD 13.4\%) across 157 questions with at least 20 answers, and declined as ambiguity increased, from 96\% for Medication/Event Flag to 62\% for Event Timing questions. Conclusions: LLMs answering clinical registry questions on unprocessed EMR data achieved far lower accuracy than human abstractors. LLM accuracy fell steadily as ambiguity and the level of required clinical reasoning increased.
Subjects: Computation and Language (cs.CL)
ACM classes: I.2.1
Cite as: arXiv:2608.20373 [cs.CL]
  (or arXiv:2608.20373v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.20373
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

Submission history

From: David Scheinker [view email]
[v1] Tue, 23 Jun 2026 18:27:01 UTC (46 KB)
Full-text links:

Access Paper:

    View a PDF of the paper titled An ambiguity taxonomy for evaluating large language model performance on clinical registry abstraction: a multi-site prospective study, by James Matheson and 3 other authors
  • View PDF
  • HTML (experimental)
  • TeX Source

Current browse context:

cs.CL
< prev   |   next >
Change to browse by:
cs

References & Citations

Loading...

BibTeX formatted citation

loading...
Data provided by:

Bookmark

BibSonomy Reddit
Bibliographic Tools

Bibliographic and Citation Tools

Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media

Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article

alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos

Demos

Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers

Recommenders and Search Tools

Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
About arXivLabs

arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.

Discussion (0)

Sign in to join the discussion. Free account, 30 seconds — email code or GitHub.

Sign in →

No comments yet. Sign in and be the first to say something.

More from arXiv — NLP / Computation & Language