Papers › CUICurate: A GraphRAG-based Framework for Automated Clinical Concept Curation for NLP...
CUICurate: A GraphRAG-based Framework for Automated Clinical Concept Curation for NLP applications
Victoria Blake, Jamie Novak, Mathew Miller, Sze-yuan Ooi, Blanca Gallego
Title, abstract, authors and date from arXiv's metadata (CC0); this paper is not in the Papers with Code archive (frozen 2025-07-28).
Background: Clinical named entity recognition tools commonly map free text to Unified Medical Language System (UMLS) Concept Unique Identifiers (CUIs). For many downstream tasks, however, the clinically meaningful unit is not a single CUI but a concept set comprising related synonyms, subtypes, and associated concepts. Constructing these sets is labour-intensive, inconsistently performed, and poorly supported by existing tools. Methods We present CUICurate, a graph-based retrieval-augmented generation (GraphRAG) framework for automated UMLS concept set curation. A UMLS knowledge graph (KG) was constructed and embedded for semantic retrieval. Candidate CUIs were retrieved using graph-based expansion and then filtered and classified using large language models (GPT-5 and Qwen3-32B). The framework was evaluated on five lexically heterogeneous clinical concepts against a manually curated concept sets and gold-standard concept sets. Results CUICurate produced substantially larger and more complete concept sets than the manual benchmarks. A single retrieval configuration across concepts achieved high recall of definitive concepts with manageable candidate sets. GPT-5 outperformed manual curation for all concepts and retained at least 95% of definitive gold-standard CUIs, while Qwen3-32B achieved comparable but slightly lower performance. Many missed concepts were not observed in 10,000 MIMIC-III notes. CUICurate infrastructure and end-to-end processing was inexpensive and stable across runs. Conclusions CUICurate offers a scalable, reproducible and cost-efficient approach for generating clinician-reviewable UMLS concept sets tailored to clinical natural language processing and phenotyping applications.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2602.17949")
Code
Syntology Ran 4 of 6 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 2 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · our draft was wrong; 1 ran with no contract checked.
By repository: found in paper text by Syntology: 6 samples from 1 repository, 4 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.
Code Syntology ran Syntology
6 samples harvested; 4 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 2 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-25; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.
Licence: 0 of the 6 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.
Harvested from vickyblake/CUICurate. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.
Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.
Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.
cd9b223d228d23d3 · report
461e08475d30681c · report
754ccf7edcc5faa5 · report
b0115262023b2b12 · report
2d1e0ba822a03233 · report
aa5e6fd0665970bb · report
Results from the paper
The Papers with Code archive ends with its 2025-07-28 snapshot. This paper's arXiv identifier, 2602.17949, was issued in February 2026, after that date, so the archive has no leaderboard rows for it.
Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections