ArticleJournal of human hypertension2026
Atherosclerosis prediction with large language models via prompt engineering.
Article in Journal of human hypertension, 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Atherosclerosis remains difficult to detect in its early stages due to its often asymptomatic nature. While artificial intelligence, particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), has shown significant promise for diagnostic support, optimal strategies for leveraging their capabilities in clinical risk prediction remain unclear. This study evaluated LLMs for atherosclerosis risk prediction using prompt engineering through mutual information-based feature selection and similarity-based case retrieval. Utilizing a large Japanese health checkup cohort (n = 117 698), with cardio-ankle vascular index (CAVI) as an atherosclerosis indicator, we evaluated Llama-3.1-Swallow-8B-Instruct-v0.1 performance across various configurations using F1 scores. We compared four case extraction methods, including Random Selection, Mahalanobis Distance, Cosine Similarity, Euclidean Distance, and feature selection from Zero-shot (no cases) to 4-shot, 6-shot, and 10-shot settings. The integration of mutual information-based feature selection with similarity-based case extraction improved F1 scores across all in-context learning settings. Cosine similarity-based selection achieved the highest F1 score in the 4-shot setting (0.715 ± 0.023) and 6-shot settings (0.719 ± 0.022), while Euclidean distance-based selection yielded the best F1 scores in the 10-shot (0.724 ± 0.017) settings. These combinations consistently outperformed the random selection baselines, which yielded significantly lower F1 scores (4-shot: 0.461 ± 0.017; 6-shot: 0.475 ± 0.023; 10-shot: 0.462 ± 0.029). Our findings demonstrate that combining feature selection with similarity-based case retrieval enhances the ability of LLMs to predict atherosclerosis risk. The substantial improvement in F1 scores over baseline methods suggests that optimized prompt engineering is crucial for clinical application of LLMs in cardiovascular risk assessment.
Identifiers
42706372What 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.