Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39934379›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025

The foundational capabilities of large language models in predicting postoperative risks using clinical notes.

Charles Alba, Bing Xue, Joanna Abraham, Thomas Kannampallil, Chenyang Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Improving postoperative length of stay forecasting with retrieval-augmented prediction.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2025
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

5 authors.

Charles Alba *AI for Health Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, St Louis, 63130, MO, USA.
Bing Xue *AI for Health Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, St Louis, 63130, MO, USA.
Joanna AbrahamAI for Health Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, St Louis, 63130, MO, USA.
Thomas KannampallilAI for Health Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, St Louis, 63130, MO, USA.
Chenyang LuAI for Health Institute, Washington University in St. Louis, 1 Brookings Drive, St Louis, 63130, MO, USA. lu@wustl.edu.

Funding

AHRQ HHS R01 HS029324AHRQ HHS R01 HS029324-02
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical notes recorded during a patient's perioperative journey holds immense informational value. Advances in large language models (LLMs) offer opportunities for bridging this gap. Using 84,875 preoperative notes and its associated surgical cases from 2018 to 2021, we examine the performance of LLMs in predicting six postoperative risks using various fine-tuning strategies. Pretrained LLMs outperformed traditional word embeddings by an absolute AUROC of 38.3% and AUPRC of 33.2%. Self-supervised fine-tuning further improved performance by 3.2% and 1.5%. Incorporating labels into training further increased AUROC by 1.8% and AUPRC by 2%. The highest performance was achieved with a unified foundation model, with improvements of 3.6% for AUROC and 2.6% for AUPRC compared to self-supervision, highlighting the foundational capabilities of LLMs in predicting postoperative risks, which could be potentially beneficial when deployed for perioperative care.

Identifiers

PMID39934379
PMCPMC11814325

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.