ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
Automating Adjudication of Cardiovascular Events Using Large Language Models.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. 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.
- Combining Token Classification With Large Language Model Revision for Age-Friendly 4M Entity Recognition From Nursing Home Text Messages: Development and Evaluation Study.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
- Extraction of Treatments and Responses From Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Notes Using Natural Language Processing.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2026Article
- Large language models in clinical trials: applications, technical advances, and future directions.BMC medicine · 2025Review
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
Cardiovascular event adjudication is essential in clinical trials but relies on manual chart review that is slow, variable, and expensive. We present a two-stage framework that automates adjudication of cardiovascular deaths using large language models (LLMs). First, a few-shot LLM extracts structured evidence (event, span, negation, date) from unstructured clinical documents. Second, a Tree-of-Thoughts adjudicator aligns its reasoning with clinical endpoint committee (CEC) guidelines to classify deaths as cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular and produce an auditable rationale. On Lilly clinical-trial data, extraction achieved precision 0.96, recall 0.71 (F1 0.82), and adjudication attained 0.68 accuracy (GPT-4 ToT), outperforming a summarizer-plus-adjudicator baseline. We introduce CLEART, a rubric-based automated score that quantifies rationale quality across clarity, consistency, detail, guideline adherence, relevance, and timeline accuracy (overall 0.67), highlighting temporal reasoning and relevance as key areas for improvement. This approach can reduce adjudication time and variability while increasing transparency.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41726539PMC12919421What 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.