MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408591745 · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocaf048

Utilizing large language models for detecting hospital-acquired conditions: an empirical study on pulmonary embolism

2025· article· en· W4408591745 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Cheligeer Cheligeer, Danielle A. Southern, Jun Yan, Guosong Wu, Jie Pan, Seungwon Lee, Elliot A. Martin, Hamed Jafarpour, Cathy A. Eastwood, Yong Zeng, Hude Quan

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaConcordia UniversityUniversity of CalgaryAlberta Health Services
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication DisordersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMedicineMedical recordPopulationPulmonary embolismComputer scienceChartDocumentationData extractionArtificial intelligenceNatural language processingMachine learningMEDLINEInternal medicineStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: Adverse event detection from Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) is challenging due to the low incidence of the event, variability in clinical documentation, and the complexity of data formats. Pulmonary embolism as an adverse event (PEAE) is particularly difficult to identify using existing approaches. This study aims to develop and evaluate a Large Language Model (LLM)-based framework for detecting PEAE from unstructured narrative data in EMRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a chart review of adult patients (aged 18-100) admitted to tertiary-care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, between 2017-2022. We developed an LLM-based detection framework consisting of three modules: evidence extraction (implementing both keyword-based and semantic similarity-based filtering methods), discharge information extraction (focusing on six key clinical sections), and PEAE detection. Four open-source LLMs (Llama3, Mistral-7B, Gemma, and Phi-3) were evaluated using positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. Model performance for population-level surveillance was assessed at yearly, quarterly, and monthly granularities. RESULTS: The chart review included 10 066 patients, with 40 cases of PEAE identified (0.4% prevalence). All four LLMs demonstrated high sensitivity (87.5-100%) and specificity (94.9-98.9%) across different experimental conditions. Gemma achieved the highest F1-score (28.11%) using keyword-based retrieval with discharge summary inclusion, along with 98.4% specificity, 87.5% sensitivity, and 99.95% negative predictive value. Keyword-based filtering reduced the median chunks per patient from 789 to 310, while semantic filtering further reduced this to 9 chunks. Including discharge summaries improved performance metrics across most models. For population-level surveillance, all models showed strong correlation with actual PEAE trends at yearly granularity (r=0.92-0.99), with Llama3 achieving the highest correlation (0.988). DISCUSSION: The results of our method for PEAE detection using EMR notes demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity across all four tested LLMs, indicating strong performance in distinguishing PEAE from non-PEAE cases. However, the low incidence rate of PEAE contributed to a lower PPV. The keyword-based chunking approach consistently outperformed semantic similarity-based methods, achieving higher F1 scores and PPV, underscoring the importance of domain knowledge in text segmentation. Including discharge summaries further enhanced performance metrics. Our population-based analysis revealed better performance for yearly trends compared to monthly granularity, suggesting the framework's utility for long-term surveillance despite dataset imbalance. Error analysis identified contextual misinterpretation, terminology confusion, and preprocessing limitations as key challenges for future improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed method demonstrates that LLMs can effectively detect PEAE from narrative EMRs with high sensitivity and specificity. While these models serve as effective screening tools to exclude non-PEAE cases, their lower PPV indicates they cannot be relied upon solely for definitive PEAE identification. Further chart review remains necessary for confirmation. Future work should focus on improving contextual understanding, medical terminology interpretation, and exploring advanced prompting techniques to enhance precision in adverse event detection from EMRs.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.283
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.339 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Informatics AssociationSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207