ArticleCommunications medicine2026
Automating clinical phenotyping using natural language processing.
Article in Communications medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundReal-world studies based on electronic health records often require manual chart review to derive patients' clinical phenotypes, a labor-intensive task with limited scalability. Here, we developed and compared computable phenotyping based on rules using the spaCy framework and a Large Language Model (LLM), GPT-4, for sub-phenotyping of patients with Crohn's disease, considering age at diagnosis and disease behavior.
methodsFor our rule-based approach, we leveraged the spaCy framework and for the LLM-based approach, we used the GPT-4 model. The underlying data included 49,572 clinical notes and 2204 radiology reports from 584 Crohn's disease patients. A test set of 280 clinical texts was labeled at sentence-level, in addition to patient-level ground truth data. The algorithms were evaluated based on their recall, precision, specificity values, and F1 scores.
resultsOverall, we observe similar or better performance using GPT-4 compared to the rules. On a note-level, the F1 score is at least 0.90 for disease behavior and 0.82 for age at diagnosis, and on patient level at least 0.66 for disease behavior and 0.71 for age at diagnosis.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this is the first study to explore computable phenotyping algorithms based on clinical narrative text for these complex tasks, where prior inter-annotator agreements ranged from 0.54 to 0.98. There is no statistical evidence for a difference to the performance of human experts on this task. Our findings underline the potential of LLMs for computable phenotyping and may support large-scale cohort analyses from electronic health records and streamline chart review processes in the future.
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.