ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Identify Patients at Risk of HIV Using a Clinical Large Language Model from Electronic Health Records.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study developed a large language model (LLM)-based solution to identify people at HIV risk using electronic health records. We transformed structured EHR data, including demographics, diagnoses, and medications, into narrative descriptions ordered by visit date and applied GatorTron, a widely used clinical LLM trained on 82 billion words of de-identified clinical text. We compared GatorTron with traditional machine learning models, including LASSO and XGBoost. We identified a cohort with 54,265 individuals, where only 3,342 (6%) had new HIV diagnoses. Our LLM solution, based on GatorTron, achieved excellent performance, reaching an F1 score of 53.5% and an AUC of 0.88, comparable to traditional machine learning approaches. Subgroup analysis showed that, across age, sex, and race/ethnicity groups, both LLM and traditional models achieved AUCs above 0.82. Interpretability analyses showed broadly consistent patterns across LLM models and traditional machine learning models.
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.