Application of EMR data-based LLM-based Disease Identification Framework to improve ICD data-based risk adjustment algorithms.

IF 2.2 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
International Journal of Population Data Science Pub Date : 2026-07-06 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3481
Seungwon Lee, Elliot Martin, Kiarash Riazi, Noopur Swadas, Cathy Eastwood, Jinli Yao, Robin Walker, Danielle Southern, Bing Li, Jeffrey Bakal
{"title":"Application of EMR data-based LLM-based Disease Identification Framework to improve ICD data-based risk adjustment algorithms.","authors":"Seungwon Lee, Elliot Martin, Kiarash Riazi, Noopur Swadas, Cathy Eastwood, Jinli Yao, Robin Walker, Danielle Southern, Bing Li, Jeffrey Bakal","doi":"10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3481","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Risk adjustment is essential for comparisons across populations by integrating individual health status and demographic factors to evaluate healthcare outcomes. We hypothesized that risk adjustment based on Large Language Models (LLMs) for case definitions, using electronic medical records (EMR) data, would outperform international classification of diseases (ICD) based algorithms in predicting inpatient mortality. Study Design and Methods A retrospective chart review cohort (n=10,659) consisting of randomly selected patients aged 18 years or older who were discharged from acute care settings was used. The chart review data were deterministically linked to an ICD database and an EMR database. We developed and applied an LLM-based framework (i.e., Phi-4) to EMR data for large-scale disease identification and compared it with ICD-based algorithms. To predict inpatient mortality, we calculated C-statistics using logistic regression. Among the cohort, 717 patients experienced inpatient mortality. Across all disease categories, LLM-based identification outperformed the ICD-data-based method. The ICD data-based risk adjustment algorithm achieved a C-statistic of 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.68) for in-hospital mortality, while the EMR data-based algorithm achieved a 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.78) C-statistic. The chart review had a C-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.73) Effective risk adjustment for predicting health outcomes requires accurate information on patient comorbidity and demographic profiles. EMR data-based case definitions can account for disease severity (e.g., disease subtypes) and other variables (e.g., social determinants of health) that may not be readily available with historical ICD-based methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":36483,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Population Data Science","volume":"11 5","pages":"3481"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13426785/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Population Data Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v11i5.3481","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Risk adjustment is essential for comparisons across populations by integrating individual health status and demographic factors to evaluate healthcare outcomes. We hypothesized that risk adjustment based on Large Language Models (LLMs) for case definitions, using electronic medical records (EMR) data, would outperform international classification of diseases (ICD) based algorithms in predicting inpatient mortality. Study Design and Methods A retrospective chart review cohort (n=10,659) consisting of randomly selected patients aged 18 years or older who were discharged from acute care settings was used. The chart review data were deterministically linked to an ICD database and an EMR database. We developed and applied an LLM-based framework (i.e., Phi-4) to EMR data for large-scale disease identification and compared it with ICD-based algorithms. To predict inpatient mortality, we calculated C-statistics using logistic regression. Among the cohort, 717 patients experienced inpatient mortality. Across all disease categories, LLM-based identification outperformed the ICD-data-based method. The ICD data-based risk adjustment algorithm achieved a C-statistic of 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.68) for in-hospital mortality, while the EMR data-based algorithm achieved a 0.76 (95% CI: 0.74 to 0.78) C-statistic. The chart review had a C-statistic of 0.71 (95% CI: 0.68 to 0.73) Effective risk adjustment for predicting health outcomes requires accurate information on patient comorbidity and demographic profiles. EMR data-based case definitions can account for disease severity (e.g., disease subtypes) and other variables (e.g., social determinants of health) that may not be readily available with historical ICD-based methods.

应用基于EMR数据的llm疾病识别框架改进基于ICD数据的风险调整算法。
通过综合个人健康状况和人口统计学因素来评估医疗保健结果,风险调整对于跨人群比较至关重要。我们假设,使用电子医疗记录(EMR)数据,基于病例定义的大语言模型(llm)的风险调整在预测住院患者死亡率方面将优于基于国际疾病分类(ICD)的算法。研究设计和方法采用回顾性图表回顾队列(n=10,659),随机选择18岁或以上的急性护理出院患者。图表回顾数据确定地连接到ICD数据库和EMR数据库。我们开发并应用基于llm的框架(即Phi-4)对EMR数据进行大规模疾病识别,并将其与基于icd的算法进行比较。为了预测住院病人死亡率,我们使用逻辑回归计算c统计量。在队列中,717例患者住院死亡。在所有疾病类别中,基于llm的识别优于基于icd数据的方法。基于ICD数据的风险调整算法对院内死亡率的c统计量为0.66 (95% CI 0.64 ~ 0.68),而基于EMR数据的算法的c统计量为0.76 (95% CI: 0.74 ~ 0.78)。图表回顾的c统计量为0.71 (95% CI: 0.68 ~ 0.73)。预测健康结果的有效风险调整需要准确的患者合并症和人口统计资料。基于电子病历数据的病例定义可以解释疾病严重程度(例如,疾病亚型)和其他变量(例如,健康的社会决定因素),这些变量可能无法通过基于疾病分类的历史方法轻易获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
386
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书