ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
A framework for human-artificial intelligence co-learning for disease activity labeling using electronic health records.
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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objective: To develop and evaluate a framework for human-AI interaction. This approach, SHARE (Synergistic Human-Agent REasoning system) was designed to support scalable phenotyping of complex outcomes accurately, robustly and reproducibly from real-world electronic health record (EHR) data to support real-world evidence (RWE) generation. Methods and Analysis: Using rheumatoid arthritis (RA) disease activity as the use-case, we studied a multi-institutional EHR-based RA cohort of 3,167 patients. Expert reviewers and a disease activity agent labeled notes using the same review guideline. The agent combined embedding-based informative-note filtering, structured evidence extraction, and evidence-based integrated reasoning to assign disease activity categories with supporting evidence, rationale, confidence, and ambiguity flags. To support scalable deployment, we evaluated a budget-tiered configuration using GPT-5 Nano for high-volume evidence extraction, o4-mini for final reasoning, benchmarking against a GPT-5.4 high reasoning effort configuration applied at every step. Note-level discrepancies were adjudicated by reviewers into final co-produced labels that were used to refine labels and inform agent development. The main outcome measure was the mean absolute error (MAE) of the initial and final agent vs the final co-produced labels. The agreement between agent- and reviewer-flagged ambiguous notes, per-note cost and compute time across configurations were also tested. Results: Expert reviewers labeled 626 notes from 273 patients; human-AI adjudication revised 127 (20%) of these initial labels and added 60 newly labeled notes, yielding a 686-note co-produced reference. Against this reference, the final agent's accuracy improved from a mean absolute error of 0.406 to 0.291 with co-learning, and its ambiguity flag agreed with expert ambiguity designations with 92.1% accuracy. Applied across the cohort, the agent labeled 101,691 notes; the budget tiered configuration matched the accuracy of GPT-5.4 at high reasoning effort while reducing estimated cost by 69% and compute time by 70%. Conclusion: Adopting a framework for human-AI co-learning, SHARE, improved the overall quality of gold-standard labels, identified ambiguous cases for further review, and supported accurate and standardized chart reviews of disease activity at a scale infeasible for manual review. SHARE's resource efficiency provides a transferable approach to incorporate complex phenotypes in RWE studies.
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.