Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42595369›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Diagnostic accuracy of electronic medical record retrieval methods and a large language model for identifying cardiovascular events: a multisite retrospective validation study in a medical system in the United States.

Omar Ibrahim, Juan Farina, Milagros Pereyra Pietri, Kamal Awad, Mohammed Tiseer Abbas, Isabel G Scalia, Hesham Sheashaa, Fatmaelzahraa E Abdelfattah, Mahshad Razaghi, Cecilia C Villa Etchegoyen and 4 more

Abstract readValidation StudyMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Omar IbrahimDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Juan FarinaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Milagros Pereyra PietriDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-2530-7850
Kamal AwadDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Mohammed Tiseer AbbasDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Isabel G ScaliaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Hesham SheashaaDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Fatmaelzahraa E AbdelfattahDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Mahshad RazaghiDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Cecilia C Villa EtchegoyenDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0278-2192
Vinod C KaggalInformation Technology, Mayo Clinic Minnesota, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Santiago Romero-BrufauAI and Systems Engineering, Department of Otolaryngology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9922-0083
Reza ArsanjaniDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA.
Chadi AyoubDepartment of Cardiovascular Medicine, Mayo Clinic Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona, USA ayoub.chadi@mayo.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo compare the diagnostic accuracy of four available automated electronic medical record (EMR) retrieval methods, including a large language model (LLM)-assisted workflow, against manual chart adjudication for identifying cardiovascular events.

designRetrospective diagnostic accuracy study.

settingThree sites within a single US tertiary health system.

participantsTwo adult cohorts with previously adjudicated cardiovascular outcomes were included. Cohort 1 included 2258 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and Cohort 2 included 1426 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The reference standard was clinician manual chart adjudication. Outcomes included ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) exacerbation or hospitalisation and a composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome. Automated retrieval methods included International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, primary diagnosis, problem list and a zero-shot LLM workflow. Area under the (receiver operating characteristic) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and net reclassification improvement were assessed.

resultsIn Cohort 1, the LLM achieved the highest AUC for stroke (0.920; 95% CI 0.881 to 0.958), MI (0.938; 95% CI 0.905 to 0.971) and composite MACE (0.880; 95% CI 0.854 to 0.907), whereas ICD-based retrieval had a higher AUC for HF (0.882; 95% CI 0.845 to 0.918 vs 0.873; 95% CI 0.831 to 0.914). In Cohort 2, the LLM achieved the highest AUC for all evaluated outcomes: stroke (0.915; 95% CI 0.862 to 0.968), MI (0.928; 95% CI 0.839 to 1.000), HF (0.844; 95% CI 0.803 to 0.884) and composite MACE (0.862; 95% CI 0.829 to 0.895). In Cohort 1, differences in AUC between the LLM and ICD methods were not statistically significant across outcomes, whereas in Cohort 2 the LLM showed significantly higher AUC for stroke and composite MACE.

conclusionIn this multisite retrospective validation study, the LLM-assisted workflow showed strong but context-dependent performance for identifying cardiovascular events from the EMR. Performance varied by outcome and cohort, and ICD-based retrieval remained competitive for some use cases. These findings support a complementary role for LLM-assisted extraction in retrospective cardiovascular outcomes research.

Indexed as

Cardiovascular DiseasesElectronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHeart FailureHumansLarge Language ModelsMaleMyocardial InfarctionRetrospective StudiesROC CurveUnited StatesArtificial IntelligenceCardiovascular DiseaseHealth informaticsInformation ExtractionSTATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID42595369
PMCPMC13475313

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.