Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42094151›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026

Disease Risk Prediction Using Structured EHR Data: Can Generalist Large Language Models Match Specialized Clinical Foundation Models? A Comparative Evaluation with Fine-Tuning.

Bingyu Mao, Made K Prasadha, Ziqian Xie, Jianping He, Michael Ghebranious, Hua Xu, Degui Zhi, Laila Rasmy

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

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

8 authors.

Bingyu MaoMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-5428-8079
Made K PrasadhaMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Ziqian XieMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6541-1773
Jianping HeMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Michael GhebraniousMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Hua XuDepartment of Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA.
Degui ZhiMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7754-1890
Laila RasmyMcWilliams School of Biomedical Informatics, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2644-4908

Funding

Clinical foundation model for structured clinical dataR01LM014249 · NLM · UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HLTH SCI CTR HOUSTON · PI Laila Rasmy Gindy Bekhet · 2023 to 2026
$1.4M
NLM NIH HHS R01 LM014249
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Electronic health records (EHRs) with clinical decision support tools are now ubiquitous in healthcare organizations. Clinical foundation models (CFMs) pretrained on large-scale, heterogeneous structured EHR data have emerged as a powerful approach to improve predictive performance and generalizability. Meanwhile, large language models (LLMs) pretrained on broad data sources are being applied to an expanding range of healthcare tasks. However, it remains unclear whether generalist LLMs can match specialized CFMs for disease risk prediction using structured clinical data. Methods: We compared CFMs (Med-BERT, CLMBR) against fine-tuned generalist LLMs (Mistral, LLaMA-2/3/3.1), a clinical LLM (Me-LLaMA), and LLM-generated embeddings paired with simple classifiers (using DeepSeek, Qwen3, and GPT-OSS) on two disease risk prediction tasks: heart failure risk among diabetic patients (DHF) and pancreatic cancer diagnosis (PaCa). Evaluations spanned multi-site EHR data, claims data, and an open-source single-institution benchmark (EHRSHOT). Performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC). Results: On larger EHR and claims cohorts (>30,000 patients), fine-tuned CFMs outperformed fine-tuned LLMs by a small but statistically significant margin (<1% AUROC). The clinical LLM performed comparably to generalist LLMs despite being smaller. On the open-source PaCa cohort (3,810 patients, 199 cases), LLMs achieved slightly higher AUROCs that were not statistically significant (LLaMA-3.1-70B 86.1% vs. Med-BERT 85.3%, p=0.27), but CFMs achieved significantly higher AUPRC (Med-BERT 55.9% vs. LLaMA-3.1-70B 41.1%, p=0.001). Notably, LLM-generated trajectory embeddings paired with logistic regression or a simple MLP, without any LLM fine-tuning, achieved the best overall performance, with AUROC exceeding 90% (Qwen3) and AUPRC reaching 66% (GPT-OSS 20B). Conclusion: LLM-generated embeddings with lightweight classifiers outperformed both fine-tuned CFMs and fine-tuned LLMs on AUROC and AUPRC. While these results demonstrate the potential of generalist models to match or surpass specialized CFMs, their substantially greater computational cost and variable AUPRC performance in the fine-tuning setting warrant caution. We provide a reproducible evaluation framework and codebase to support continued benchmarking.

Indexed as

Clinical Foundation ModelsDisease Risk PredictionElectronic Health RecordsLarge Language Models

Identifiers

PMID42094151
PMCPMC13142573

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.