A multi-center study on the adaptability of a shared foundation model for electronic health records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Foundation models are transforming artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare by providing modular components adaptable for various downstream tasks, making AI development more scalable and cost-effective. Foundation models for structured electronic health records (EHR), trained on coded medical records from millions of patients, demonstrated benefits including increased performance with fewer training labels, and improved robustness to distribution shifts. However, questions remain on the feasibility of sharing these models across hospitals and their performance in local tasks. This multi-center study examined the adaptability of a publicly accessible structured EHR foundation model (FM SM ), trained on 2.57 M patient records from Stanford Medicine. Experiments used EHR data from The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) and Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care (MIMIC-IV). We assessed both adaptability via continued pretraining on local data, and task adaptability compared to baselines of locally training models from scratch, including a local foundation model. Evaluations on 8 clinical prediction tasks showed that adapting the off-the-shelf FM SM matched the performance of gradient boosting machines (GBM) locally trained on all data while providing a 13% improvement in settings with few task-specific training labels. Continued pretraining on local data showed FM SM required fewer than 1% of training examples to match the fully trained GBM’s performance, and was 60 to 90% more sample-efficient than training local foundation models from scratch. Our findings demonstrate that adapting EHR foundation models across hospitals provides improved prediction performance at less cost, underscoring the utility of base foundation models as modular components to streamline the development of healthcare AI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".