Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42490570›Full record

ArticlePLOS digital health2026

Enabling interoperability across disparate health data sources using Large Language Models.

Obinwa Ozonze, Ogechukwu Okonor, Uzondu Dike, Taiwo Adedeji

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS digital health, 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

4 authors.

Obinwa OzonzeSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5385-7954
Ogechukwu OkonorDepartment of Computing & Emerging Technologies, Ravensbourne University London, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6163-9648
Uzondu DikeInsight and Analytics, Emcor Group, Eastleigh, Hampshire, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-4586-094X
Taiwo AdedejiSchool of Computing, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, Hampshire, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7201-7202

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The heterogeneity of health data systems remains a major barrier to interoperability and data integration, and a challenge for clinical decision support and AI-driven research. The coexistence of multiple Common Data Models (CDMs) complicates integration, requiring complex manual or rule-based schema mapping, which is labor-intensive, error-prone, and difficult to scale. We evaluated three leading Large Language Models (LLMs): ChatGPT, Gemini, and DeepSeek, for their ability to match data elements from four widely used CDMs (PCORnet, OMOP, Sentinel, and i2b2) to FHIR R4 via web-based chat interfaces. Reference mappings from the HL7 Common Data Models Harmonization Implementation Guide were used as the benchmark. Standardized prompts were submitted across 36 total runs (3 LLMs × 4 schemas × 3 repetitions), and accuracy was measured using F1-scores with 95% confidence intervals, alongside strict (AND) and relaxed (OR) match criteria. DeepSeek obtained the highest numerical mean F1-scores (0.78-0.99) with strong consistency (AND Match = 0.87). Gemini showed good coverage (OR Match = 0.96) but greater variability (AND Match = 0.64), while ChatGPT achieved moderate accuracy with lower consistency (AND Match = 0.51). A two-way ANOVA indicated no statistically significant differences by LLM type (p = 0.138), CDM schema (p = 0.194), or their interaction (p = 0.451). Performance varied by domain, with Demographics and Condition mapped most accurately, while Observation showed the highest error rates (44% of total errors). Out of 2,583 total matchings, 314 errors were observed and categorized into four failure patterns: semantic confusion (42%), structural misalignment (28%), ambiguous terminology (18%), and terminology variance (12%). This study demonstrates the feasibility of using LLMs to automate health data integration as a complementary approach to traditional ontology-based methods, particularly for well-structured, context-rich CDMs. However, safe deployment requires human-in-the-loop validation, governance, prompt optimization, metadata integration, and validation to ensure clinical and research reliability.

Identifiers

PMID42490570
PMCPMC13395378

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.