Clinical Note Comparison and Data Retrieval Via Embedding Vectors: Model Selection, Metrics, and Convergence
Discuss this preprint
Start a discussion What are Sciety discussions?Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Embedding models are an integral part of generative AI architectures, transforming text into embedding vectors that represent semantic content in numerical form. Despite their central role, their performance in clinical settings remains underexplored. We evaluate embedding models across two tasks: semantic difference detection in clinical texts, and data retrieval from patient records.
Methods
Eight models were applied to synthetic discharge summaries in English, Finnish, and Swedish. Semantic sensitivity was assessed by introducing controlled perturbations (deletion, modification, and paraphrasing) at three levels of severity; cosine similarity, and L 1 and Euclidean distances were computed between the vectors of the original and perturbed texts. Partial vectors were compared to explore dimensionality reduction. Two models with the biggest contrast in semantic difference detection were evaluated on retrieval of relevant information from real Finnish vascular surgery records.
Results
Embedding vectors captured semantic differences in clinical text: content deletion and modification produced larger increases in vector distance than paraphrasing. On average, models detected the direction of semantic change correctly, but case-level performance varied considerably. Qwen3-Embedding-8B was the only model with zero directional errors, while multilingual-E5-large erred in 13.8% of cases. In data retrieval, Qwen3-Embedding-8B again outperformed multilingual-E5-large, though the margin was narrower: sufficiency scores were 3.25 vs. 3.17 out of 5 for the first query and 2.25 vs. 1.15 out of 5 for the second query. For some models, as few as 0.6-1.2% of dimensions sufficed to replicate full-vector accuracy; principal component analysis and coordinate-level analysis did not account for this finding.
Conclusions
Our results show that the choice of embedding model is important: performance differences between models can be large enough to determine whether clinically relevant information reaches the end user, and model weaknesses can be both task-specific and context-dependent.
