ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Multisite Real-World Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Generative Artificial Intelligence Tool for Venous Thromboembolism Risk Stratification.
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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Guiding risk-appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis requires venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification; however, reliable risk determination remains inconsistent in routine care. Health systems increasingly pilot artificial intelligence (AI) tools, yet few studies demonstrate rigorous evaluation in the context of a learning health system (LHS). We evaluated the performance of a pilot electronic health record (EHR)-integrated generative AI (GenAI) system, inHealth General Reasoner (iHGR), for VTE risk stratification versus clinician order set classifications and physician-adjudicated chart review. Methods: This multisite retrospective validation study included adult inpatient admissions at Johns Hopkins Medicine between June 21, 2025, and Dec 18, 2025 (checklist-based order set from June 21, 2025 - November 19, 2025, and clinician judgement-based order set from November 29 - December 18, 2025). From 758 eligible admissions, we randomly sampled 500 balanced by site and order set periods. iHGR and clinician-selected order set classifications were compared with the reference standard (RS). Primary outcomes were iHGR sensitivity and specificity. Secondary analyses compared the order sets with the same RS to evaluate workflow comparators and error patterns. Results: iHGR achieved 81.8% sensitivity (95% CI 77.3-85.6) and 70.9% specificity (63.6-77.3). The checklist-based order set had 61.3% sensitivity (53.7-68.5) and 86.2% specificity (77.4-91.9). The clinician judgement-based order set had 78.1% sensitivity (71.3-83.7) and 65.4% specificity (54.3-75.0). False-negative iHGR classifications were associated with missed narrative risk factors. Conclusion: iHGR showed higher sensitivity for VTE risk than checklist-based order sets and clinician judgement without introducing systematic bias.
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.