Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41111610›Full record

ArticleO&G open2025

Predicting Postpartum Hemorrhage Using Clinical Features Extracted With Large Language Models.

Elizabeth G Woo, Israel Zighelboim, Tyler Gifford, Joseph G Bell, Hannah Milthorpe, Emily Alsentzer, Ryan E Longman, Jorge E Tolosa, Brett K Beaulieu-Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in O&G open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
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

9 authors.

Elizabeth G WooCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Israel ZighelboimCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Tyler GiffordCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Joseph G BellCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Hannah MilthorpeCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Emily AlsentzerCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Ryan E LongmanCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Jorge E TolosaCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.
Brett K Beaulieu-JonesCenter for Computational Medicine and Clinical AI, Department of Medicine, and the Section of Ultrasound, Genetics, and the Fetal Neonatal Care Center, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois; the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Division of Gynecologic Oncology, St. Luke's Cancer Center, St. Luke's University Health Network, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania; the Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, California; and Maternal Fetal Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon.

Funding

Characterizing Population Differences between Clinical Trial and Real World PopulationsR00NS114850 · NINDS · UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO · PI BEAULIEU-JONES, BRETT K · 2023 to 2025
$740k
NINDS NIH HHS R00 NS114850
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate whether large language models (LLMs) applied to prenatal clinical notes can predict postpartum hemorrhage (PPH) before the onset of labor and to compare model performance across outcome definitions, including a novel intervention-based definition.

methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study within a large regional health network. Two outcome definitions for PPH were used: 1) estimated or quantitative blood loss (EBL-QBL) extracted from clinical notes; and 2) a clinical intervention-based PPH definition (cPPH) designed to capture significant hemorrhage requiring intervention, including transfusion, uterotonics, Bakri balloon, or hysterectomy. We evaluated three PPH prediction pipelines: 1) structured data only-supervised machine learning that used structured electronic medical record data; 2) LLM-direct-direct prediction that used a fine-tuned LLM applied to clinical notes; and 3) LLM-extract-interpretable models that used LLM-extracted features combined with structured data. Model performance was evaluated using an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) on a temporally held-out test set.

resultsAmong 19,992 deliveries, 1,156 patients (5.8%) met the EBL-QBL definition of PPH, 321 (1.6%) met the cPPH definition, and 309 (1.5%) met both definitions. The LLM-based direct prediction model achieved the highest AUROC for both PPH definitions (AUROC 0.79-0.80), followed by interpretable models that combined LLM-extracted features with structured data (AUROC 0.76-0.78). Models that used only structured data had the lowest AUROC (0.65-0.71). The LLM-extracted features approach identified 47 significant predictors, including established risk factors such as multiple gestation and previous cesarean delivery.

conclusionThese findings highlight the potential of LLM-based approaches to improve PPH risk stratification beyond structured data alone, with the feature extraction method offering a promising balance between predictive performance and clinical utility. Eventual integration of these methods into clinical workflows could improve early detection and guide targeted preventive interventions.

Identifiers

PMID41111610
PMCPMC12533993

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.