ArticleNature communications2026
Representation learning to advance multi-institutional studies with electronic health record data from US and France.
Article in Nature communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the feasibility of the CIPHER metadata framework towards building a conceptual phenotype standard.JAMIA open · 2026Article
- Representation learning to advance multi-institutional studies with electronic health record data from US and France.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Integrating multiple data sources to predict all-cause readmission or mortality in patients with substance misuse.PLOS digital health · 2025Article
- Advancing the Use of Longitudinal Electronic Health Records: Tutorial for Uncovering Real-World Evidence in Chronic Disease Outcomes.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
24 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The widespread adoption of electronic health records has created new opportunities for translational clinical research, yet this promise remains constrained by fragmented data across privacy-siloed institutions and substantial heterogeneity in local coding practices. While privacy-preserving collaborative learning allows institutions to work together without sharing patient-level data, it does not address inconsistencies in how clinical concepts are represented across sites. We introduce a graph-based framework that addresses this gap by treating data harmonization as a scalable representation learning problem. Rather than relying on fixed standards or manual mappings, the framework integrates institution-specific summary statistics from health records, curated biomedical knowledge graphs, and semantic information derived from large language models to learn a shared semantic space. This joint learning approach aligns diverse, site-specific vocabularies while preserving patient privacy. Evaluated across seven institutions and two languages, the framework provides a robust, data-centric foundation for training and deploying clinical models across heterogeneous healthcare systems.
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.