Key Coverage Matters: Semi-Structured Extraction of OCR Clinical Reports
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Clinical reports are often fragmented across healthcare institutions because privacy regulations and data silos limit direct information sharing. When patients seek care at a different hospital, they often carry paper or scanned reports from prior visits. This hinders EHR integration and longitudinal review, and downstream applications that depend on more complete patient records, such as patient management, follow-up care, real-world studies, and clinical-trial matching. Although OCR can digitize such reports, reliable extraction remains challenging because clinical documents are heterogeneous, OCR text is noisy, and many healthcare settings require low-cost on-premise deployment. We formulate this problem as canonical key-conditioned extractive question answering over OCR-derived clinical reports. Because the key fields are neither fixed nor known in advance, the key space is open. We maintain a canonical key inventory through iterative key mining, normalization, clustering, and lightweight human verification, and introduce key coverage as a metric to quantify inventory completeness. Using a 0.2B BERT-based model, experiments on real-world reports from more than 20 hospitals show performance improves monotonically with key coverage. The model achieves F1 scores of 0.839 and 0.893 under exact match and boundary-tolerant matching, respectively, once the Top-90 canonical keys are covered. These results show that key coverage is a dominant factor for end-to-end performance. At Top-90 coverage, our model outperforms a fine-tuned Qwen3-0.6B baseline under exact match. Although our annotated corpus is Chinese, the method relies on the language-agnostic key-value organization of semi-structured clinical reports and can be adapted to other settings given an appropriate canonical key inventory and alias mapping.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 13 of its 24 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 10 May 2026.
Builds on
13 of 24 references.
References · 13
- 2021LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Modelscited by 14,084
- 2025Qwen3 Technical Reportcited by 8,195
- 2019BioBERT: a pre-trained biomedical language representation model for biomedical text miningcited by 1,935
- 2020Domain-Specific Language Model Pretraining for Biomedical Natural Language Processingcited by 996
- 2026DeepSeek-V4: Towards Highly Efficient Million-Token Context Intelligencecited by 877
- 2019FUNSD: A Dataset for Form Understanding in Noisy Scanned Documentscited by 345
- 2020Self-Alignment Pretraining for Biomedical Entity Representationscited by 233
- 2022Unified Structure Generation for Universal Information Extractioncited by 220
- 2018emrQA: A Large Corpus for Question Answering on Electronic Medical Recordscited by 134
- 2023DocILE Benchmark for Document Information Localization and Extractioncited by 58
- 2023Natural Language Processing in Electronic Health Records in Relation to Healthcare Decision-making: A Systematic Reviewcited by 25
- 2022Parallel Instance Query Network for Named Entity Recognitioncited by 19
Built on by
Not cited yet.