Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41741485›Full record

ArticleScientific data2026

A Dataset for Addressing Patient's Information Needs related to Clinical Course of Hospitalization.

Sarvesh Soni, Dina Demner-Fushman

Abstract readDataset
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific data, 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

2 authors.

Sarvesh SoniDivision of Intramural Research, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. sarvesh.soni@nih.gov.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1704-1039
Dina Demner-FushmanDivision of Intramural Research, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4361-5799

Funding

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | U.S. National Library of Medicine (NLM) Intramural Research Program
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patient's unique information needs about their hospitalization can be addressed using clinical evidence from electronic health records (EHRs) and artificial intelligence (AI). However, robust datasets to assess the factuality and relevance of AI-generated responses are lacking and, to our knowledge, none capture patient information needs in the context of their EHRs. To address this gap, we introduce ArchEHR-QA, an expert-annotated dataset of 134 cases from intensive care unit and emergency department settings. Cases comprise patient questions from public health forums, clinician-interpreted versions, relevant clinical note excerpts with sentence-level relevance annotations, and clinician-authored answers. To establish benchmarks for grounded EHR question answering (QA), we evaluated three open-weight large language models (Llama 4, Llama 3, and Mixtral) across three prompting strategies. We assessed performance on two dimensions: Factuality (overlap between cited and ground truth evidence) and Relevance (similarity to reference answers).

Indexed as

Electronic Health RecordsHospitalizationArtificial IntelligenceEmergency Service, HospitalHumansIntensive Care UnitsLarge Language Models

Identifiers

PMID41741485
PMCPMC13046737

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.