Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41686877›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

SHREC: A framework for advancing next-generation computational phenotyping with large language models.

Sarah Pungitore, Shashank Yadav, Molly Douglas, Jarrod Mosier, Vignesh Subbian

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sarah PungitoreCollege of Medicine - Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5782-6741
Shashank YadavCollege of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Molly DouglasCollege of Medicine - Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Jarrod MosierCollege of Medicine - Tucson, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.
Vignesh SubbianCollege of Engineering, The University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, United States of America.

Funding

Computational and Mathematical Modeling of Biomedical SystemsT32GM132008 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI Ryan Gutenkunst, JOANNA MASEL · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
NIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM132008
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Computational phenotyping is a central informatics activity with resulting cohorts supporting a wide variety of applications. However, it is time-intensive because of manual data review and limited automation. Since LLMs have demonstrated promising capabilities for text classification, comprehension, and generation, we posit they will perform well at repetitive manual review tasks traditionally performed by human experts. To support next-generation computational phenotyping, we developed SHREC, a framework for integrating LLMs into end-to-end phenotyping pipelines. We applied and tested three lightweight LLMs (Gemma2 27 billion, Mistral Small 24 billion, and Phi-4 14 billion) to classify concepts and phenotype patients using phenotypes for ARF respiratory support therapies. All models performed well on concept classification, with the best (Mistral) achieving an AUROC of 0.896. For phenotyping, models demonstrated near-perfect specificity for all phenotypes with the top-performing model (Mistral) achieving an average AUROC of 0.853 for single-therapy phenotypes. In conclusion, lightweight LLMs can assist researchers with resource-intensive phenotyping tasks. Several advantages of LLMs included their ability to adapt to new tasks with prompt engineering alone and their ability to incorporate raw EHR data. Future steps include determining optimal strategies for integrating biomedical data and understanding reasoning errors.

Identifiers

PMID41686877
PMCPMC12904566

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.