ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
A generative approach for semantic auditing of electronic health records.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The reliability of clinical artificial intelligence (AI) depends on high-quality data, yet Electronic Health Records are often inconsistent with existing scientific knowledge. Current quality assessments are limited: they either focus on syntax or rely on labor-intensive manual rules to capture semantic nuances. To overcome these scalability barriers, we propose Medical Data Pecking, a methodology that adopts software unit testing principles for medical data validation. It introduces Semantic Data Coverage, employing Large Language Models to generate context-aware tests that "peck" for inconsistencies between observed data and epidemiological evidence. To demonstrate this methodology, we implemented a reference tool using a Retrieval-Augmented Generation architecture that synthesizes medical literature into executable code. When applied to three datasets, this implementation generated dozens of tests per cohort, identifying discrepancies between observed distributions and epidemiological priors. These discrepancies encompass both genuine data inconsistencies and expected cohort-selection effects. This work provides an initial framework for scalable semantic auditing, shifting assurance from manual rules to the generative and context-sensitive verification required for trustworthy AI.
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.