Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39703187›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA2025

Lessons learned on information retrieval in electronic health records: a comparison of embedding models and pooling strategies.

Skatje Myers, Timothy A Miller, Yanjun Gao, Matthew M Churpek, Anoop Mayampurath, Dmitriy Dligach, Majid Afshar

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Large Language Models with Temporal Reasoning for Longitudinal Clinical Summarization and Prediction.Findings of ACL. EMNLP. Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing · 2025
    Article
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

7 authors.

Skatje MyersDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-9524-8436
Timothy A MillerComputational Health Informatics Program, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA 02215, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-4513-403X
Yanjun GaoDepartment of Biomedical Informatics, University of Colorado-Anschutz, Aurora, CO 80045, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9341-7360
Matthew M ChurpekDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Anoop MayampurathDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, United States.
Dmitriy DligachDepartment of Computer Science, Loyola University Chicago, Chicago, IL 60626, United States.
Majid AfsharDepartment of Medicine, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI 53726, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6368-4652

Funding

Learning Universal Patient Representations with Hierarchical TransformersR01LM012973 · NLM · BOSTON CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL · PI Timothy A Miller · 2019 to 2026
$3.5M
NIH HHS R01LM012973NLM NIH HHS R01 LM012973
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesApplying large language models (LLMs) to the clinical domain is challenging due to the context-heavy nature of processing medical records. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) offers a solution by facilitating reasoning over large text sources. However, there are many parameters to optimize in just the retrieval system alone. This paper presents an ablation study exploring how different embedding models and pooling methods affect information retrieval for the clinical domain. MATERIALS AND

methodsEvaluating on 3 retrieval tasks on 2 electronic health record (EHR) data sources, we compared 7 models, including medical- and general-domain models, specialized encoder embedding models, and off-the-shelf decoder LLMs. We also examine the choice of embedding pooling strategy for each model, independently on the query and the text to retrieve.

resultsWe found that the choice of embedding model significantly impacts retrieval performance, with BGE, a comparatively small general-domain model, consistently outperforming all others, including medical-specific models. However, our findings also revealed substantial variability across datasets and query text phrasings. We also determined the best pooling methods for each of these models to guide future design of retrieval systems. DISCUSSION: The choice of embedding model, pooling strategy, and query formulation can significantly impact retrieval performance and the performance of these models on other public benchmarks does not necessarily transfer to new domains. The high variability in performance across different query phrasings suggests that the choice of query may need to be tuned and validated for each task, or even for each institution's EHR.

conclusionThis study provides empirical evidence to guide the selection of models and pooling strategies for RAG frameworks in healthcare applications. Further studies such as this one are vital for guiding empirically-grounded development of retrieval frameworks, such as in the context of RAG, for the clinical domain.

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsInformation Storage and RetrievalNatural Language ProcessingHumanselectronic health recordsinformation retrievalnatural language processingtext embedding

Identifiers

PMID39703187
PMCPMC11756698

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.