Clinical narrative text contains crucial patient information, yet reliable extraction remains challenging due to linguistic variability, documentation habits, and differences across care settings. Large language models (LLMs) have shown strong accuracy on clinical information extraction (IE), but their reproducibility (stability under repeated runs) and robustness (stability under small, natural prompt variations) are less consistently quantified, despite being central to clinical deployment. In this study, we evaluate three open-weight LLMs representing distinct modeling choices: a dense general-purpose model (Llama 3.3), a mixture-of-experts (MoE) general-purpose model (Llama 4), and a domain-tuned medical model (MedGemma). We focus on binary clinical IE aligned with four mobility classes from the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. Using a controlled experimental design, we quantify (1) intra-prompt reproducibility across repeated sampling and (2) inter-prompt robustness across paraphrased prompts. We jointly report predictive performance (F1-score) and stability (Fleiss' Kappa [κ]). And we test factor effects using three-way ANOVA with post-hoc comparisons. Results show that increasing temperature generally degrades agreement, but the magnitude depends on model and task; furthermore, prompt paraphrasing can substantially reduce stability, with particularly large drops for the MoE model. Finally, we evaluate a practical mitigation, self-consistency via majority voting, which improves κ substantially and often improves or preserves F1-score, at the cost of additional inference. Together, these findings provide a reproducible framework and concrete recommendations for evaluating and improving LLM reliability in clinical IE.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This study was supported by Eric and Wendy Schmidt Fund for AI Research and Innovation, NIH (National Institutes of Health) R01 AG068007 and RF1 AG090341. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board and Olmsted Medical Center Institutional Review Boards

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

All data used for this work was from electronic health records which include identifiable data and thus cannot be made publicly available due to privacy and legal reasons.