ArticleLearning health systems2026
Large Language Models for Summarizing Advance Care Planning Information From Goals of Care Notes in the EHR.
Article in Learning health systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Catching the Wave: AI In Health Services Research.Learning health systems · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Embedding systematic, structured data extraction within electronic health records (EHR) is vital for improved real-time insights into care delivery. This study evaluates the feasibility of using large language models (LLMs) to extract structured advance care planning (ACP) information from unstructured Goals of Care (GoC) clinical notes in the EHR. Materials and Methods: A sample of 100 de-identified GoC notes was manually annotated by clinicians across four ACP categories: Patient Priorities, Code Status, Decision Maker, and Documentation. Two LLMs (Mistral 24.07 and LLaMA 3.1) were prompted to extract structured outputs without domain-specific fine-tuning. Model outputs were compared to human annotations using cosine similarity of BioBERT embeddings. Results: Mistral 24.07 achieved high semantic similarity in Code Status (0.814), Documentation (0.781), and Patient Priorities (0.770), but lower alignment in Decision Maker (0.609). Conclusions: LLMs can effectively extract structured ACP information, particularly in well-documented categories, suggesting potential for scalable, data-driven feedback loops that improve the provision of care. However, accuracy challenges remain, and further refinement is needed for nuanced qualitative content categories.
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.