ArticleArXiv2025
A Dataset for Addressing Patient's Information Needs related to Clinical Course of Hospitalization.
Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Patients have distinct information needs about their hospitalization that can be addressed using clinical evidence from electronic health records (EHRs). While artificial intelligence (AI) systems show promise in meeting these needs, robust datasets are needed to evaluate the factual accuracy and relevance of AI-generated responses. To our knowledge, no existing dataset captures patient information needs in the context of their EHRs. We introduce ArchEHR-QA, an expert-annotated dataset based on real-world patient cases from intensive care unit and emergency department settings. The cases comprise questions posed by patients to public health forums, clinician-interpreted counterparts, relevant clinical note excerpts with sentence-level relevance annotations, and clinician-authored answers. To establish benchmarks for grounded EHR question answering (QA), we evaluated three open-weight large language models (LLMs)--Llama 4, Llama 3, and Mixtral--across three prompting strategies: generating (1) answers with citations to clinical note sentences, (2) answers before citations, and (3) answers from filtered citations. We assessed performance on two dimensions: Factuality (overlap between cited note sentences and ground truth) and Relevance (textual and semantic similarity between system and reference answers). The final dataset contains 134 patient cases. The answer-first prompting approach consistently performed best, with Llama 4 achieving the highest scores. Manual error analysis supported these findings and revealed common issues such as omitted key clinical evidence and contradictory or hallucinated content. Overall, ArchEHR-QA provides a strong benchmark for developing and evaluating patient-centered EHR QA systems, underscoring the need for further progress toward generating factual and relevant responses in clinical contexts.
Identifiers
40735090PMC12306830What 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.