ArticleJAMIA open2025
Exploring the potential of large language models for assessing medication adherence to the ESC heart failure guidelines.
Article in JAMIA open, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate large language models (LLMs) for automating the assessment of clinician adherence to ESC heart failure pharmacotherapy guidelines. Materials and Methods: We used electronic health records (EHRs) data pertaining to hospitalized heart failure patients. The task was to assess whether discharge medications followed the guidelines. We labeled each record as: (1) all recommended medications are present and target doses achieved; (2) all recommended medications are present, but target doses not achieved; (3) one or more recommended medications are missing. We evaluated three general-domain (GLM-4-9B-chat, Llama3-8B-Instruct, Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2) and three medical-specific (Med42-v2-8B, Llama-3-8B-UltraMedical, OpenBioLLM-8B) open-source LLMs under different prompt settings (zero-shot, few-shot and Chain-of-Thought). We fine-tuned the models using synthesized preference data from our EHR data with the Monolithic Preference Optimization without Reference Model (ORPO) method. We performed a learning curve analysis to determine optimal training data size for performance. We assessed LLM performance using the macro F1 score. Results: We included data of 1,141 patients. Adherence to medication and doses was 5.3%. All LLMs scored F1 < 0.40 across most prompt settings (baseline F1 = 0.333). After fine-tuning, four LLMs scored F1 ≥ 0.90; the other two LLMs namely Llama3-8B-Instruct and OpenBioLLM-8B scored F1 = 0.794 and 0.787, respectively. GLM-4-9B-Chat reached peak performance with 40% of the training data, while Mistral-7B-Instruct-v0.2 required 50%. Other models needed more data. Conclusion: Task-specific fine-tuning of LLMs is necessary for optimal performance, and selecting the appropriate LLM for this is important. Without fine-tuning, both general-domain and medical-specific LLMs performed close to random guessing, revealing key limitations in their adaptability to specialized tasks. Medical-specific LLMs showed no clear advantage over general-domain LLMs.
Indexed as
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.