Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41696047›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in artificial intelligence2026

HealthProcessAI: a technical framework and proof-of-concept for LLM-enhanced healthcare process mining.

Eduardo Illueca-Fernandez, Kaile Chen, Fernando Seoane, Farhad Abtahi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in artificial intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Eduardo Illueca-FernandezDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Kaile ChenDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Fernando SeoaneDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Farhad AbtahiDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Process mining has emerged as a powerful analytical technique for understanding complex healthcare workflows. However, its application faces significant barriers, including technical complexity, a lack of standardized approaches, and limited access to practical training resources. To address unfamiliarity and improve accessibility, we proposed a new framework for translating technical analyses into text outputs that users can understand. Objective: We introduce HealthProcessAI, a GenAI framework designed to simplify process mining applications in healthcare and epidemiology by providing a comprehensive wrapper around existing Python (PM4PY) and R (bupaR) libraries. To address unfamiliarity and improve accessibility, the framework integrates multiple Large Language Models (LLMs) for automated process map interpretation and report generation, helping translate technical analyses into outputs that diverse users can readily understand. Methods: HealthProcessAI implements modular architecture with the following components: (1) data loading and preparation, (2) process mining analysis, (3) integration of LLM for interpretation, (4) advanced analytics, (5) multimodal report orchestration, and (6) the validation framework. We validated the framework using sepsis progression data as a proof-of-concept example and compared the outputs of five state-of-the-art LLM models through the OpenRouter platform. This study presents a technical validation using automated LLM evaluation, and clinical validation by healthcare professionals is planned as future work. Results: To test its functionality, the framework successfully processed sepsis data across four proof-of-concept cases. A total of 32 reports were generated, demonstrating robust technical performance and its capability to generate reports through automated LLM analysis. In concrete terms, there are eight reports per case and four reports per LLM model. LLM evaluation using seven independent LLMs as automated evaluators revealed distinct model strengths: Claude Sonnet-4 and Gemini 2.5-Pro achieved the highest consistency scores (3.72/4.0 and 3.49/4.0) when evaluated by automated LLM assessors. It is important to note that outputs were not clinically validated by healthcare professionals. Conclusion: HealthProcessAI provides a standardized framework that reduces technical and training barriers in healthcare process mining while maintaining scientific objectivity. By integrating multiple LLMs for automated interpretation and report generation, the framework addresses widespread unfamiliarity with process mining outputs, demonstrating technical feasibility for making them more accessible to clinicians, data scientists and researchers pending clinical validation. This structured analytics and AI-driven interpretation combination represents a novel methodological advance in translating complex process mining results into potentially actionable insights for healthcare applications. However, future work should involve systematic evaluation by clinicians.

Indexed as

epidemiologygenerative AIhealthcare analyticslarge language modelsprocess mining

Identifiers

PMID41696047
PMCPMC12901364

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.