Papers › Can GPT-3.5 Generate and Code Discharge Summaries?
Can GPT-3.5 Generate and Code Discharge Summaries?
Matúš Falis, Aryo Pradipta Gema, Hang Dong, Luke Daines, Siddharth Basetti, Michael Holder, Rose S Penfold, Alexandra Birch, Beatrice Alex
Objective: To investigate GPT-3.5 in generating and coding medical documents with ICD-10 codes for data augmentation on low-resources labels. Materials and Methods: Employing GPT-3.5 we generated and coded 9,606 discharge summaries based on lists of ICD-10 code descriptions of patients with infrequent (generation) codes within the MIMIC-IV dataset. Combined with the baseline training set, this formed an augmented training set. Neural coding models were trained on baseline and augmented data and evaluated on a MIMIC-IV test set. We report micro- and macro-F1 scores on the full codeset, generation codes, and their families. Weak Hierarchical Confusion Matrices were employed to determine within-family and outside-of-family coding errors in the latter codesets. The coding performance of GPT-3.5 was evaluated both on prompt-guided self-generated data and real MIMIC-IV data. Clinical professionals evaluated the clinical acceptability of the generated documents. Results: Augmentation slightly hinders the overall performance of the models but improves performance for the generation candidate codes and their families, including one unseen in the baseline training data. Augmented models display lower out-of-family error rates. GPT-3.5 can identify ICD-10 codes by the prompted descriptions, but performs poorly on real data. Evaluators note the correctness of generated concepts while suffering in variety, supporting information, and narrative. Discussion and Conclusion: GPT-3.5 alone is unsuitable for ICD-10 coding. Augmentation positively affects generation code families but mainly benefits codes with existing examples. Augmentation reduces out-of-family errors. Discharge summaries generated by GPT-3.5 state prompted concepts correctly but lack variety, and authenticity in narratives. They are unsuitable for clinical practice.
In Syntology View this paper on Syntology: its repositories, every harvested function with whether it ran, its licence and the call to fetch it.
Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.
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="2401.13512")
Code
Syntology Ran 3 of 3 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 3 ran · our draft was wrong.
By repository: official repository: 3 samples from 1 repository, 3 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.
Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. 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
3 samples harvested; 3 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 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: 3 of the 3 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 edinburghclinicalnlp/chatgpt_icd_coding. “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.
6fade22ceb53b637 · report
aae667a9e9bc2760 · report
37bb67624dc2161a · report
Tasks
Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28
No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.
Methods
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