ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
Verifiable Summarization of Electronic Health Records Using Large Language Models to Support Chart 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 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.
- Expert Evaluation and Consensus on GPT-4o Summaries of Clinical Letters: Validation and Results of the Framework and Implementation of AI Tools Project.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Information overload in electronic health records (EHRs) hampers clinicians' ability to efficiently extract and synthesize critical information from a patient's longitudinal health record, leading to increased cognitive burden and delays in care. This study explores the potential of large language models (LLMs) to address this challenge by generating problem-based admission summaries for patients admitted with heart failure, a leading cause of hospitalization worldwide. We developed an extract-then-abstract approach guided by disease-specific "summary bundles" to generate summaries of longitudinal clinical notes that prioritize clinically relevant information. Through a mixed-methods evaluation using real-world clinical notes, we compared physicians' ability to answer patient-specific clinical questions with the LLM-generated summaries versus standard chart review. While summary access did not significantly reduce overall questionnaire completion time, frequent summary use significantly contributed to faster questionnaire completion (p = 0.002). Individual physicians varied in how effectively they leveraged the summaries. Importantly, summary use maintained accuracy in answering clinical questions (88.0% with summaries vs. 86.4% without). All physicians indicated they were "likely" or "very likely" to use the summaries in clinical practice, and 87.5% reported that the summaries would save them time. Preferences for summary format varied, highlighting the need for customizable summaries aligned with individual clinician workflows. This study provides one of the first extrinsic evaluations of LLMs for longitudinal summarization, demonstrating their potential to enhance clinician efficiency, alleviate workload, and support informed decision-making in time-sensitive care environments.
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.