Skip to content
← Back to explorer

From Documents to Spans: Scalable Supervision for Evidence-Based ICD Coding with LLMs

Xu Zhang, Wenxin Ma, Chenxu Wu, Rongsheng Wang, Zhiyang He, Xiaodong Tao, Kun Zhang, S. Kevin Zhou · Mar 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Moderate trust

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Evidence quality

Moderate

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis. Reliable coding requires that each predicted code be supported by explicit textual evidence. However, existing public datasets provide only code labels, without evidence annotations, limiting models' ability to learn evidence-grounded predictions. In this work, we argue that dense, document-level evidence annotation is not always necessary for learning evidence-based coding. Instead, models can learn code-specific evidence patterns from local spans and use these patterns to support document-level evidence-based coding. Based on this insight, we propose Span-Centric Learning (SCL), a training framework that strengthens LLMs' coding ability at the span level and transfers this capability to full clinical documents. Specifically, we use a small set of annotated documents to supervise evidence recognition, aggregation, and code assignment, while leveraging a large collection of lightweight evidence spans to reinforce span-level reasoning. Due to their compactness, span annotations are scalable and can be further augmented through synthesis. Under the same Llama3.1-8B backbone, our approach achieves an 8.2-point improvement in macro-F1 at only 20% of the training cost of standard SFT, and provides explicit supporting evidence for each predicted code, enabling human auditing and revision.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper has useful evaluation signal, but protocol completeness is partial; pair it with related papers before deciding implementation strategy.

Best use

Secondary protocol comparison source

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

65/100 • Medium

Useful as a secondary reference; validate protocol details against neighboring papers.

Human Feedback Signal

Detected

Evaluation Signal

Detected

Usefulness for eval research

Moderate-confidence candidate

Extraction confidence 70%

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

strong

Critique Edit

Directly usable for protocol triage.

"International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis."

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis."

Reported Metrics

strong

F1, F1 macro

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis."

Human Feedback Details

  • Uses human feedback: Yes
  • Feedback types: Critique Edit
  • Rater population: Not reported
  • Expertise required: Medicine, Coding

Evaluation Details

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Evidence quality: Moderate
  • Use this page as: Secondary protocol comparison source

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

f1f1 macro

Research Brief

Metadata summary

International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key Takeaways

  • International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding assigns diagnosis codes to clinical documents and is essential for healthcare billing and clinical analysis.
  • Reliable coding requires that each predicted code be supported by explicit textual evidence.
  • However, existing public datasets provide only code labels, without evidence annotations, limiting models' ability to learn evidence-grounded predictions.

Researcher Actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended Queries

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Based on this insight, we propose Span-Centric Learning (SCL), a training framework that strengthens LLMs' coding ability at the span level and transfers this capability to full clinical documents.
  • Under the same Llama3.1-8B backbone, our approach achieves an 8.2-point improvement in macro-F1 at only 20% of the training cost of standard SFT, and provides explicit supporting evidence for each predicted code, enabling human auditing and…

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Under the same Llama3.1-8B backbone, our approach achieves an 8.2-point improvement in macro-F1 at only 20% of the training cost of standard SFT, and provides explicit supporting evidence for each predicted code, enabling human auditing and…

Researcher Checklist

  • Pass: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    Detected: Critique Edit

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: f1, f1 macro

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.