Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40502573›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

Verifiable Summarization of Electronic Health Records Using Large Language Models to Support Chart Review.

Ritchie Verma, Emily Alsentzer, Zachary Strasser, Leslie Chang, Kirollos Roman, Esteban Gershanik, Camellia Hernandez, Miguel Linares, Jorge Rodriguez, Durga Thakral and 4 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

14 authors.

Ritchie VermaMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02114.
Emily AlsentzerBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.ORCID 0000-0002-5370-1746
Zachary StrasserMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02114.ORCID 0000-0002-4846-6059
Leslie ChangMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02114.
Kirollos RomanMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02114.
Esteban GershanikMassachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02114.
Camellia HernandezBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
Miguel LinaresBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
Jorge RodriguezBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
Durga ThakralBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
Ozan UnluBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
Jacqueline YouBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
Li ZhouBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.
David BatesBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA, 02115.

Funding

RESEARCH TRAINING-MEDICAL INFORMATICS 90T15LM007092 · NLM · HARVARD UNIVERSITY (SCH OF PUBLIC HLTH) · PI Nils Gehlenborg · 1992 to 2026
$32.8M
Research Training in Gastrointestinal and Hepatic DiseasesT32DK135449 · NIDDK · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI Jessica R. Allegretti · 2023 to 2026
$1.7M
NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK135449NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007092
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID40502573
PMCPMC12155021

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.