Measuring the sensitivity of LLM-based structured extraction to prompt, model, and schema choices in clinical discharge summaries

Large language models are increasingly used for structured extraction from clinical free-text notes, but the sensitivity of their output to upstream configuration choices is less understood than their accuracy on fixed benchmarks. This work measures that sensitivity without human-annotated ground truth, by holding the extraction task fixed and varying one choice at a time. The fixed schema comprises 17 clinical documentation flags on a three-way yes/no/not_documented value set and a 47-tag vocabulary for the primary admission reason. Three prompt variants expressing this schema were each run at two model sizes on MIMIC-IV v3.1 discharge summaries. Cross-prompt agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa on ICD-stratified subsets. A paired same-note comparison isolated the effect of model choice, and a post-hoc collapse of the three-way flags to binary tested the schema's contribution to disagreement. On the three-way flags, the two models reach the same pooled cross-prompt agreement (median kappa 0.69 and 0.68); the larger model raises agreement on some fields and lowers it on others, a redistribution rather than the absence of an effect. Collapsing the schema to binary dissolves most of the cross-prompt disagreement, locating it on the absence-versus-silence distinction rather than on whether the finding is present. On the multi-class admission categorization, changing the model reassigns the dominant tag on close to half of all notes while changing the prompt phrasing reassigns it on roughly one in eight, and the larger model places far less mass on residual catch-all categories (44% to 26%). These patterns indicate a schema-imposed source of disagreement concentrated on the absence-versus-silence axis and a dominance of model over prompt phrasing on multi-class categorization, identified by a reusable methodology for auditing extraction reproducibility on a population-scale deployment.