Tobias Roeschl, Marie Hoffmann, Axel Unbehaun, Henryk Dreger, Gerhard Hindricks, Volkmar Falk, Ran Balicer, Radu Tanacli, Felix Hohendanner, Alexander Meyer
{"title":"Development of an LLM pipeline exceeding physician-documented cardiovascular risk scores under routine clinical conditions.","authors":"Tobias Roeschl, Marie Hoffmann, Axel Unbehaun, Henryk Dreger, Gerhard Hindricks, Volkmar Falk, Ran Balicer, Radu Tanacli, Felix Hohendanner, Alexander Meyer","doi":"10.1093/ehjdh/ztag124","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>Risk scores are essential to evidence-based cardiovascular care, but manual calculation is labour intensive and error prone. Large language models (LLMs) could automate this process, yet LLMs are limited by their propensity for calculation errors and factual hallucinations. Pipelines separating LLM-based data extraction from deterministic score computation may improve reliability and transparency.</p><p><strong>Methods and results: </strong>We conducted a retrospective diagnostic study at a quaternary heart centre in Germany (January 2020 to July 2023). Patients with atrial fibrillation (<i>n</i> = 179) from an ablation registry and patients with severe aortic stenosis (<i>n</i> = 76) evaluated by a heart team were included. Six LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek-R1, Qwen3, GPT-OSS 120B, and Kimi K2.5) were tested in standalone, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and pipeline configurations to compute HAS-BLED, CHA<sub>2</sub>DS<sub>2</sub>-VASc, and EuroSCORE II scores from routine clinical reports. Accuracy was assessed against expert-adjudicated ground truth using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Krippendorff's α to evaluate numerical deviation and categorical agreement, respectively. Pipeline-generated scores showed substantially higher agreement with expert adjudication than standalone LLMs, LLMs with RAG, and treating physicians (mean Krippendorff's α: 0.78 vs. 0.32 vs. 0.39 vs. 0.31) and lower deviation from ground truth (mean RMSE: 0.89 vs. 5.81 vs. 1.85 vs. 1.34).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Pipelines combining expert-curated knowledge injection, LLM-based clinical data extraction, and deterministic score calculation enable accurate and scalable cardiovascular risk score computation from unstructured real-world clinical data, outperforming physician-documented scores. Such pipelines could form the basis for clinical decision-support systems that automate routine risk assessment, reduce clinician workload, and promote more consistent evidence-based care.</p>","PeriodicalId":72965,"journal":{"name":"European heart journal. Digital health","volume":"7 7","pages":"ztag124"},"PeriodicalIF":4.4000,"publicationDate":"2026-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13492338/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European heart journal. Digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ehjdh/ztag124","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aims: Risk scores are essential to evidence-based cardiovascular care, but manual calculation is labour intensive and error prone. Large language models (LLMs) could automate this process, yet LLMs are limited by their propensity for calculation errors and factual hallucinations. Pipelines separating LLM-based data extraction from deterministic score computation may improve reliability and transparency.
Methods and results: We conducted a retrospective diagnostic study at a quaternary heart centre in Germany (January 2020 to July 2023). Patients with atrial fibrillation (n = 179) from an ablation registry and patients with severe aortic stenosis (n = 76) evaluated by a heart team were included. Six LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek-R1, Qwen3, GPT-OSS 120B, and Kimi K2.5) were tested in standalone, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and pipeline configurations to compute HAS-BLED, CHA2DS2-VASc, and EuroSCORE II scores from routine clinical reports. Accuracy was assessed against expert-adjudicated ground truth using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Krippendorff's α to evaluate numerical deviation and categorical agreement, respectively. Pipeline-generated scores showed substantially higher agreement with expert adjudication than standalone LLMs, LLMs with RAG, and treating physicians (mean Krippendorff's α: 0.78 vs. 0.32 vs. 0.39 vs. 0.31) and lower deviation from ground truth (mean RMSE: 0.89 vs. 5.81 vs. 1.85 vs. 1.34).
Conclusion: Pipelines combining expert-curated knowledge injection, LLM-based clinical data extraction, and deterministic score calculation enable accurate and scalable cardiovascular risk score computation from unstructured real-world clinical data, outperforming physician-documented scores. Such pipelines could form the basis for clinical decision-support systems that automate routine risk assessment, reduce clinician workload, and promote more consistent evidence-based care.
目的:风险评分对循证心血管护理至关重要,但人工计算是劳动密集型的,容易出错。大型语言模型(llm)可以自动化这一过程,但llm受到计算错误和事实幻觉倾向的限制。将基于llm的数据提取与确定性分数计算分离的管道可以提高可靠性和透明度。方法和结果:我们在德国的一家第四系心脏中心进行了一项回顾性诊断研究(2020年1月至2023年7月)。包括消融登记的心房颤动患者(179例)和心脏小组评估的严重主动脉瓣狭窄患者(76例)。6种llm (GPT-5.2、Gemini 3.1 Pro、DeepSeek-R1、Qwen3、GPT-OSS 120B和Kimi K2.5)分别在独立、检索增强生成(RAG)和管道配置下进行测试,以计算常规临床报告中的ha - bled、CHA2DS2-VASc和EuroSCORE II评分。根据专家判断的基础真相,分别使用均方根误差(RMSE)和Krippendorff's α来评估数值偏差和分类一致性,评估准确性。与独立法学硕士、有RAG的法学硕士和治疗医生相比,管道生成的分数与专家裁决的一致性明显更高(平均Krippendorff α: 0.78 vs. 0.32 vs. 0.39 vs. 0.31),与基本事实的偏差更低(平均RMSE: 0.89 vs. 5.81 vs. 1.85 vs. 1.34)。结论:结合专家管理的知识注入、基于法学硕士的临床数据提取和确定性评分计算的管道,可以从非结构化的真实临床数据中准确、可扩展地计算心血管风险评分,优于医生记录的评分。这样的管道可以形成临床决策支持系统的基础,使常规风险评估自动化,减少临床医生的工作量,并促进更一致的循证护理。