ArticleScientific reports2026
Mobility functional status ascertainment in electronic health records using large language models.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- DFGLM-TCM: an integrated knowledge-and experience-driven large language model system for Traditional Chinese Medicine practice.Chinese medicine · 2026Article
- Sequential multi-site fine-tuning for incremental deployment of large language models for mobility functional status extraction.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Reproducibility and Robustness of Large Language Models for Mobility Functional Status Extraction.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
With global aging, assessing functional status is vital for precision medicine. Electronic Health Records (EHRs), particularly unstructured data, hold abundant information on patient mobility. This study explores using Large Language Models (LLMs) to extract and standardize mobility status from unstructured EHR data (i.e., clinical notes). We annotated 600 clinical notes from three healthcare institutions located in southeastern Minnesota and west-central Wisconsin, focusing on expressions of mobility and associated impairment. Leveraging the open-source Llama 3 model, we tested various prompting strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, and task decomposition, and evaluated their performance. Error analysis showed that while the model sometimes inferred impairments without explicit evidence, most errors were clinically reasonable, often reflecting borderline or ambiguous cases. Our final model achieved a patient-level micro-average F1-score of 0.876 [95% CI 0.858-0.894] for Mobility Extraction and 0.897 [95% CI 0.878-0.917] for Impairment Classification. A secondary analysis counting "clinically reasonable inferences" as correct, performed to assess clinical plausibility, yielded F1-scores of 0.962 [95% CI 0.952-0.971] and 0.948 [95% CI 0.936-0.960], respectively. A local, deterministic setup improved trustworthiness by ensuring consistent outputs, safeguarding privacy, and demonstrating cross-institution generalizability. These findings highlight the feasibility of LLM-based solutions for extracting mobility functional status from unstructured EHR data, supporting both clinical applications and research.
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.