Utilizing Large Language Models for Named Entity Recognition in Traditional Chinese Medicine against COVID-19 Literature: Comparative Study
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
- 2018BERT: Pre-training of Deep Bidirectional Transformers for Language Understandingcited by 40,204
- 2020Language Models are Few-Shot Learnerscited by 32,199
- 2023GPT-4 Technical Reportcited by 18,132
- 2019Exploring the Limits of Transfer Learning with a Unified Text-to-Text Transformercited by 14,491
- 2019RoBERTa: A Robustly Optimized BERT Pretraining Approachcited by 13,266
- 2022PaLM: Scaling Language Modeling with Pathwayscited by 5,304
- 2016SQuAD: 100,000+ Questions for Machine Comprehension of Textcited by 4,115
- 2018Know What You Don't Know: Unanswerable Questions for SQuADcited by 1,538
- 2020MiniLM: Deep Self-Attention Distillation for Task-Agnostic Compression of Pre-Trained Transformerscited by 1,414
- 2019SciBERT: A Pretrained Language Model for Scientific Textcited by 1,404
- 2020Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 996
- 2023ChatGPT Outperforms Crowd-Workers for Text-Annotation Taskscited by 849
15 more
- 2023Is ChatGPT a General-Purpose Natural Language Processing Task Solver?cited by 486
- 2023ChatIE: Zero-Shot Information Extraction via Chatting with ChatGPTcited by 250
- 2020CORD-19: The COVID-19 Open Research Datasetcited by 179
- 2023Does Synthetic Data Generation of LLMs Help Clinical Text Mining?cited by 151
- 2023Evaluating ChatGPT's Information Extraction Capabilities: An Assessment of Performance, Explainability, Calibration, and Faithfulnesscited by 130
- 2023Exploring the Feasibility of ChatGPT for Event Extractioncited by 76
- 2023Testing the Reliability of ChatGPT for Text Annotation and Classification: A Cautionary Remarkcited by 54
- 2023An Empirical Study on Information Extraction using Large Language Modelscited by 46
- 2023Evaluation of ChatGPT Family of Models for Biomedical Reasoning and Classificationcited by 17
- 2022QaNER: Prompting Question Answering Models for Few-shot Named Entity Recognitioncited by 15
- 2023GSAP-NER: A Novel Task, Corpus, and Baseline for Scholarly Entity Extraction Focused on Machine Learning Models and Datasetscited by 12
- 2023VicunaNER: Zero/Few-shot Named Entity Recognition using Vicunacited by 9
- 2023Product Information Extraction using ChatGPTcited by 3
- 2020A Sui Generis QA Approach using RoBERTa for Adverse Drug Event Identificationcited by 2
- 2023Evaluating ChatGPT text-mining of clinical records for obesity monitoringcited by 1
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2025: 1.
1 paper.