Articlenpj health systems2026
A multi-site benchmarking framework for scalable extraction of geriatric care constructs from electronic health records.
Article in npj health systems, 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
26 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Current Natural Language Processing (NLP) algorithms for detecting geriatric conditions are largely limited to domain-specific models that fail to capture the interdependent, multidimensional nature of comprehensive geriatric assessment. This study aimed to develop and evaluate a comprehensive, scalable, and robust information extraction framework to identify Comprehensive Geriatric Assessment (CGA) and Age-Friendly Health Systems (AFHS) 4Ms-related data elements from unstructured electronic health record (EHR) text across multiple health systems. Using a team science approach grounded in the TRUST framework, we annotated pooled clinical notes from four health systems to produce a gold-standard dataset of 41 CGA- and 4Ms-related geriatric care data elements. Three information extraction approaches were implemented and evaluated: an in-context learning generative large language model (GPT-4o), a hybrid heuristic-LLM model (MedAgingIE), and an instruction-tuned open-source lightweight model (Qwen2-7B-Instruct). Performance was assessed on a blinded test set using macro- and micro-averaged metrics. GPT-4o achieved a macro F1-score of 0.56 and micro F1-score of 0.87; MedAgingIE achieved 0.55 and 0.92; and Qwen2-7B-Instruct achieved 0.30 and 0.81, respectively. MedAgingIE demonstrated the strongest consistency between precision and recall, while GPT-4o showed superior sensitivity for diverse, context-rich geriatric concepts. These findings highlight key trade-offs among symbolic, generative, and instruction-tuned approaches for CGA and 4Ms phenotyping, suggesting that hybrid heuristic-LLM methods offer interpretability and stability, whereas large language models provide greater adaptability for complex clinical narratives.
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.