MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrating large language models with human expertise for disease detection in electronic health records

2025· article· en· W4409250979 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jie Pan, Seungwon Lee, Cheligeer Cheligeer, Elliot A. Martin, Kiarash Riazi, Hude Quan, Na Li

Bibliographic record

VenueComputers in Biology and Medicine · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesAlberta Health ServicesLibin Cardiovascular Institute of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsHealth recordsComputer scienceElectronic health recordData scienceNatural language processingArtificial intelligenceHealth care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Electronic health records (EHR) are widely available to complement administrative data-based disease surveillance and healthcare performance evaluation. Defining conditions from EHR is labour-intensive and requires extensive manual labelling of disease outcomes. This study developed an efficient strategy based on advanced large language models to identify multiple conditions from EHR clinical notes. METHODS: We linked a cardiac registry cohort in 2015 with an EHR system in Alberta, Canada. We developed a pipeline that leveraged a generative large language model (LLM) to analyze, understand, and interpret EHR notes by prompts based on specific diagnosis, treatment management, and clinical guidelines. The pipeline was applied to detect acute myocardial infarction (AMI), diabetes, and hypertension. The performance was compared against clinician-validated diagnoses as the reference standard and widely adopted International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes-based methods. RESULTS: The study cohort accounted for 3088 patients and 551,095 clinical notes. The prevalence was 55.4 %, 27.7 %, 65.9 % and for AMI, diabetes, and hypertension, respectively. The performance of the LLM-based pipeline for detecting conditions varied: AMI had 88 % sensitivity, 63 % specificity, and 77 % positive predictive value (PPV); diabetes had 91 % sensitivity, 86 % specificity, and 71 % PPV; and hypertension had 94 % sensitivity, 32 % specificity, and 72 % PPV. Compared with ICD codes, the LLM-based method demonstrated improved sensitivity and negative predictive value across all conditions. The monthly percentage trends from the detected cases by LLM and reference standard showed consistent patterns. CONCLUSION: The proposed LLM-based pipeline demonstrated reasonable accuracy and high efficiency in disease detection for multiple conditions. Human expert knowledge can be integrated into the pipeline to guide EHR note analysis without manually curated labels. The method could enable comprehensive real-time disease surveillance using EHRs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComputers in Biology and MedicineSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207