Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies
← Back to explorer

Retrieve, Then Classify: Corpus-Grounded Automation of Clinical Value Set Authoring

Sumit Mukherjee, Juan Shu, Nairwita Mazumder, Tate Kernell, Celena Wheeler, Shannon Hastings, Chris Sidey-Gibbons · Apr 16, 2026 · Citations: 0

How to use this page

Provisional trust

This page is a lightweight research summary built from the abstract and metadata while deeper extraction catches up.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Provisional

Derived from abstract and metadata only.

Abstract

Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping. A natural approach is to prompt a large language model (LLM) to generate the required codes directly, but structured clinical vocabularies are large, version-controlled, and not reliably memorized during pretraining. We propose Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC): retrieve the $K$ most similar existing value sets from a curated corpus to form a candidate pool, then apply a classifier to each candidate code. Theoretically, retrieve-and-select can reduce statistical complexity by shrinking the effective output space from the full vocabulary to a much smaller retrieved candidate pool. We demonstrate the utility of RASC on 11,803 publicly available VSAC value sets, constructing the first large-scale benchmark for this task. A cross-encoder fine-tuned on SAPBert achieves AUROC~0.852 and value-set-level F1~0.298, outperforming a simpler three-layer Multilayer Perceptron (AUROC~0.799, F1~0.250) and both reduce the number of irrelevant candidates per true positive from 12.3 (retrieval-only) to approximately 3.2 and 4.4 respectively. Zero-shot GPT-4o achieves value-set-level F1~0.105, with 48.6\% of returned codes absent from VSAC entirely. This performance gap widens with increasing value set size, consistent with RASC's theoretical advantage. We observe similar performance gains across two other classifier model types, namely a cross-encoder initialized from pre-trained SAPBert and a LightGBM model, demonstrating that RASC's benefits extend beyond a single model class. The code to download and create the benchmark dataset, as well as the model training code is available at: \href{https://github.com/mukhes3/RASC}{https://github.com/mukhes3/RASC}.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

  • This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Should You Rely On This Paper?

Signal extraction is still processing. This page currently shows metadata-first guidance until structured protocol fields are ready.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A provisional background reference while structured extraction finishes.

Main weakness

This page is still relying on abstract and metadata signals, not a fuller protocol read.

Trust level

Provisional

Usefulness score

Unavailable

Eval-fit score is unavailable until extraction completes.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Provisional (processing)

Extraction confidence 0%

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

provisional (inferred)

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping."

Evaluation Modes

provisional (inferred)

Automatic metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping."

Quality Controls

provisional (inferred)

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping."

Benchmarks / Datasets

provisional (inferred)

Not extracted

No benchmark anchors detected.

"Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping."

Reported Metrics

provisional (inferred)

F1

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping."

Rater Population

provisional (inferred)

Unknown

Rater source not explicitly reported.

"Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping."

Human Feedback Details

This page is using abstract-level cues only right now. Treat the signals below as provisional.

  • Potential human-data signal: No explicit human-data keywords detected.
  • Potential benchmark anchors: No benchmark names detected in abstract.
  • Abstract highlights: 3 key sentence(s) extracted below.

Evaluation Details

Evaluation fields are inferred from the abstract only.

  • Potential evaluation modes: Automatic metrics
  • Potential metric signals: F1
  • Confidence: Provisional (metadata-only fallback).

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Clinical value set authoring -- the task of identifying all codes in a standardized vocabulary that define a clinical concept -- is a recurring bottleneck in clinical quality measurement and phenotyping.
  • A natural approach is to prompt a large language model (LLM) to generate the required codes directly, but structured clinical vocabularies are large, version-controlled, and not reliably memorized during pretraining.
  • We propose Retrieval-Augmented Set Completion (RASC): retrieve the $K$ most similar existing value sets from a curated corpus to form a candidate pool, then apply a classifier to each candidate code.

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

Related Papers

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

No related papers found for this item yet.