ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Testing and Evaluation of Generative Large Language Models in Electronic Health Record Applications: A Systematic Review.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Research progress and implications of the application of large language model in shared decision-making in China's healthcare field.Frontiers in public health · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The use of generative large language models (LLMs) with electronic health record (EHR) data is rapidly expanding to support clinical and research tasks. This systematic review synthesizes current strategies, challenges, and future directions for adapting and evaluating generative LLMs in EHR analyses and applications. Methods: We followed the PRISMA guidelines to conduct a systematic review of articles from PubMed and Web of Science published between January 1, 2023, and November 9, 2024. Studies were included if they used generative LLMs to analyze real-world EHR data and reported quantitative performance evaluations. Through data extraction, we identified clinical specialties and tasks for each included article, and summarized evaluation methods. Results: Of the 18,735 articles retrieved, 196 met our criteria. Most studies focused on Radiology (26.0%), Oncology (10.7%), and Emergency Medicine (6.6%). Regarding clinical tasks clinical decision support has the most studies of 62.2%, while summarizations and patient communications have the least studies of 5.6% and 5.1% separately. In addition, GPT-4 and ChatGPT were mostly used generative LLMs, which were used in 60.2% and 57.7% of studies, respectively. We identified 22 unique non-NLP metrics and 35 unique NLP metrics. Although NLP metrics have better scalability, none of the metrics were identified as having a strong correlation with gold-standard human evaluations. Conclusion: Our findings highlight the need to evaluate generative LLMs on EHR data across a broader range of clinical specialties and tasks, as well as the urgent need for standardized, scalable, and clinically meaningful evaluation frameworks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.