ArticleHealth information science and systems2026
Leveraging electronic health records for atrial fibrillation cohort generation.
Article in Health information science and systems, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Cohort selection and eligibility screening are critical in clinical research, especially in trials where manual patient matching remains a major bottleneck. This study investigates the use of Natural Language Processing and Large Language Models (LLMs) in two real use cases, namely Atrial Fibrillation (AF) progression and Hearth Failure (HF) decompensation, within a non-English clinical context. We specifically address the following research questions: (1) Can discharge reports and NLP support cohort selection? (2) Can LLMs effectively model longitudinal patient trajectories and temporal reasoning? (3) Do general-purpose or domain-adapted LLMs outperform rule-based baselines for this task? (4) Compared to large foundation models, do small-scale LLMs offer similar performance? Methods: A dataset of 212 patients was manually annotated for AF progression using discharge reports. Two strategies were evaluated: (1) an adapted rule-based pipeline and (2) zero-shot open-source LLMs with varying prompt structures. To assess generalizability, an additional dataset of 100 patients was annotated for HF decompensation. Results: The adapted rule-based approach achieved the highest accuracy (0.82), but LLMs with task-division prompts performed comparably (up to 0.79), requiring significantly less manual effort. The medium-sized general-domain Conclusions: (1) Discharge reports are a valuable resource for automatic cohort selection, with both the rule-based method and LLMs showing promising results. (2) While LLMs struggled with long-context inputs, they handled temporal reasoning well when explicit dates were provided. (3) Larger models did not always outperform smaller ones, (4) prompt language strongly influenced performance, and medical model variants were not consistently superior.
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.