mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Utilizing Large Language Models for Named Entity Recognition in Traditional Chinese Medicine against COVID-19 Literature: Comparative Study

arXiv 2408.13501 ↗First posted 24 Aug 2024cs.CL cs.IRcited by 1

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Objective: To explore and compare the performance of ChatGPT and other state-of-the-art LLMs on domain-specific NER tasks covering different entity types and domains in TCM against COVID-19 literature. Methods: We established a dataset of 389 articles on TCM against COVID-19, and manually annotated 48 of them with 6 types of entities belonging to 3 domains as the ground truth, against which the NER performance of LLMs can be assessed. We then performed NER tasks for the 6 entity types using ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) and 4 state-of-the-art BERT-based question-answering (QA) models (RoBERTa, MiniLM, PubMedBERT and SciBERT) without prior training on the specific task. A domain fine-tuned model (GSAP-NER) was also applied for a comprehensive comparison. Results: The overall performance of LLMs varied significantly in exact match and fuzzy match. In the fuzzy match, ChatGPT surpassed BERT-based QA models in 5 out of 6 tasks, while in exact match, BERT-based QA models outperformed ChatGPT in 5 out of 6 tasks but with a smaller F-1 difference. GPT-4 showed a significant advantage over other models in fuzzy match, especially on the entity type of TCM formula and the Chinese patent drug (TFD) and ingredient (IG). Although GPT-4 outperformed BERT-based models on entity type of herb, target, and research method, none of the F-1 scores exceeded 0.5. GSAP-NER, outperformed GPT-4 in terms of F-1 by a slight margin on RM. ChatGPT achieved considerably higher recalls than precisions, particularly in the fuzzy match. Conclusions: The NER performance of LLMs is highly dependent on the entity type, and their performance varies across application scenarios. ChatGPT could be a good choice for scenarios where high recall is favored. However, for knowledge acquisition in rigorous scenarios, neither ChatGPT nor BERT-based QA models are off-the-shelf tools for professional practitioners.

Key facts. Cited by 1 paper in the map (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 27 of its 49 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 24 Aug 2024.

Builds on

27 of 49 references.

References · 27

  1. 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
  2. 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
  3. 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
  4. 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
  5. 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
  6. 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
  7. 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
  8. 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
  9. 2020MiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre-Trained Transformerscited by 1,414
  10. 2019SciBERT: A Pretrained Language Model for Scientific Textcited by 1,404
  11. 2020Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 996
  12. 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
15 more
  1. 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?cited by 486
  2. 2023ChatIE: Zero-Shot Information Extraction via Chatting with ChatGPTcited by 250
  3. 2020CORD-19: The COVID-19 Open Research Datasetcited by 179
  4. 2023Does Synthetic Data Generation of LLMs Help Clinical Text Mining?cited by 151
  5. 2023Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulnesscited by 130
  6. 2023Exploring the Feasibility of ChatGPT for Event Extractioncited by 76
  7. 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
  8. 2023An Empirical Study on Information Extraction using Large Language Modelscited by 46
  9. 2023Evaluation of ChatGPT Family of Models for Biomedical Reasoning and Classificationcited by 17
  10. 2022QaNER: Prompting Question Answering Models for Few-shot Named Entity Recognitioncited by 15
  11. 2023GSAP-NER: A Novel Task, Corpus, and Baseline for Scholarly Entity Extraction Focused on Machine Learning Models and Datasetscited by 12
  12. 2023VicunaNER: Zero/Few-shot Named Entity Recognition using Vicunacited by 9
  13. 2023Product Information Extraction using ChatGPTcited by 3
  14. 2020A Sui Generis QA Approach using RoBERTa for Adverse Drug Event Identificationcited by 2
  15. 2023Evaluating ChatGPT text-mining of clinical records for obesity monitoringcited by 1

Built on by

Cited by year

Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.

1 paper.