ArticleProgress in cardiovascular diseases
ChatGPT-4 extraction of heart failure symptoms and signs from electronic health records.
Article in Progress in cardiovascular diseases. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Theory to Practice: GPT-Supported Data Extraction in Observational Studies on Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement.JACC. Advances · 2026Article
- Operationalizing Large Language Models for Clinical Research Data Extraction: Methods, Quality Control, and Governance.Journal of medical systems · 2026Review
- In-context learning enables large language models to achieve human-level performance in spinal instability neoplastic score classification from synthetic CT and MRI reports.La Radiologia medica · 2025Article
- ChatGPT Applications in Heart Failure: Patient Education, Readability Enhancement, and Clinical Utility.Journal of cardiovascular development and disease · 2025Review
- Large Language Model Symptom Identification From Clinical Text: Multicenter Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNatural language processing (NLP) can facilitate research utilizing data from electronic health records (EHRs). Large language models can potentially improve NLP applications leveraging EHR notes. The objective of this study was to assess the performance of zero-shot learning using Chat Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (ChatGPT-4) for extraction of symptoms and signs, and compare its performance to baseline machine learning and rule-based methods developed using annotated data. METHODS AND
resultsFrom unstructured clinical notes of the national EHR data of the Veterans healthcare system, we extracted 1999 text snippets containing relevant keywords for heart failure symptoms and signs, which were then annotated by two clinicians. We also created 102 synthetic snippets that were semantically similar to snippets randomly selected from the original 1999 snippets. The authors applied zero-shot learning, using two different forms of prompt engineering in a symptom and sign extraction task with ChatGPT-4, utilizing the synthetic snippets. For comparison, baseline models using machine learning and rule-based methods were trained using the original 1999 annotated text snippets, and then used to classify the 102 synthetic snippets. The best zero-shot learning application achieved 90.6 % precision, 100 % recall, and 95 % F1 score, outperforming the best baseline method, which achieved 54.9 % precision, 82.4 % recall, and 65.5 % F1 score. Prompt style and temperature settings influenced zero-shot learning performance.
conclusionsZero-shot learning utilizing ChatGPT-4 significantly outperformed traditional machine learning and rule-based NLP. Prompt type and temperature settings affected zero-shot learning performance. These findings suggest a more efficient means of symptoms and signs extraction than traditional machine learning and rule-based methods.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.