Papers › Retrieving Evidence from EHRs with LLMs: Possibilities and Challenges

Retrieving Evidence from EHRs with LLMs: Possibilities and Challenges

8 Sep 2023arXiv:2309.04550archive 2025-07-28

Hiba Ahsan, Denis Jered McInerney, Jisoo Kim, Christopher Potter, Geoffrey Young, Silvio Amir, Byron C. Wallace

Unstructured data in Electronic Health Records (EHRs) often contains critical information -- complementary to imaging -- that could inform radiologists' diagnoses. But the large volume of notes often associated with patients together with time constraints renders manually identifying relevant evidence practically infeasible. In this work we propose and evaluate a zero-shot strategy for using LLMs as a mechanism to efficiently retrieve and summarize unstructured evidence in patient EHR relevant to a given query. Our method entails tasking an LLM to infer whether a patient has, or is at risk of, a particular condition on the basis of associated notes; if so, we ask the model to summarize the supporting evidence. Under expert evaluation, we find that this LLM-based approach provides outputs consistently preferred to a pre-LLM information retrieval baseline. Manual evaluation is expensive, so we also propose and validate a method using an LLM to evaluate (other) LLM outputs for this task, allowing us to scale up evaluation. Our findings indicate the promise of LLMs as interfaces to EHR, but also highlight the outstanding challenge posed by "hallucinations". In this setting, however, we show that model confidence in outputs strongly correlates with faithful summaries, offering a practical means to limit confabulations.

PaperPDFCodeCode Syntology ran

In Syntology Open this paper in Syntology's Atlas, the map of the papers in Syntology's graph and their citations.

For agents, Syntology's MCP tool lists every function and class Syntology harvested from this paper and whether it ran (how to connect): get_harvested_code_for_paper(arxiv_id="2309.04550")

Code

Syntology Ran 5 of 5 code samples harvested from 1 repository linked to this paper; 0 have no recorded run. Of those that ran: 1 ran · fixture could not drive it; 4 ran with no contract checked.

By repository: official repository: 5 samples from 1 repository, 5 ran. The run record, sample by sample. “Ran” means executed on a synthesized input, not that the code is correct or reproduces the paper.

hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence officialmentioned in paperpytorch report

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

5 samples harvested; 5 ran; 0 honoured the contract we drafted; 0 have no recorded run. Read from Syntology's graph 2026-09-24; that is when this build read the record, not when the samples ran.

1ran · fixture could not drive it
4ran

Licence: 5 of the 5 samples are pointer only, meaning Syntology does not serve that copy's text. This page shows no code text for any sample; each one links to its file in the repository.

Harvested from hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence. “Ran” means the sample executed on a synthesized input. It does not mean the output is correct, and nothing here reproduces the paper's results. “Honoured” and “violated” refer to a contract Syntology drafted from the code itself; “our draft was wrong” and “fixture could not drive it” are failures of Syntology's instrument, not of the code.

Each sample ends with its code_sha256, Syntology's identity for that exact code. An agent fetches the stored sample with Syntology's MCP tool get_code(code_sha256="…") (how to connect); click an identity to copy that call.

Repository labels, per sample. official repository: The archive marks this repository official for the paper. named in the paper: The archive records that the paper mentions this repository; it is not marked official. community (archive-listed): In the archive's code links for this paper, not marked official and not recorded as mentioned in the paper. found in paper text by Syntology: Syntology found this repository in the paper's own text; whether it is the authors' implementation is not asserted. community: Not in the archive's code links for this paper; a community repository Syntology harvested. Samples from a repository marked official are listed first. Licence labels name the repository's licence as recorded at harvest. “Pointer only” means Syntology does not serve that copy's text, for one of four reasons: no licence file was found; the licence was not identified; the licence is recorded as permissive but that copy's record is not marked cleared; or the licence is outside the permissive list Syntology serves text under (MIT, Apache-2.0, BSD and similar). Some licences outside that list permit redistribution, such as WTFPL, and GPL-3.0 under its conditions; they are simply not on the list. Hover a licence label for the reason. File links open the file on GitHub at the default branch, which may have changed since the harvest.

binary_prompt hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence/src/two_step_prompt_diagnosis_sentences.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · 3af3d9f303456c89 · report
evidence_prompt hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence/src/two_step_prompt_diagnosis_sentences.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · 0aea1ff44d4f878f · report
get_topk_sentences hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence/src/retrieval_cosine_rank.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · 677d8be13b726500 · report
mean_pooling hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence/src/utils.py official repository ran · fixture could not drive it fingerprinted no licence file found · pointer only · a32209dd55b92699 · report
pad_and_mask hibaahsan/chil_diagnosis_evidence/src/utils.py official repository ran no licence file found · pointer only · fa73b7a2f6cbaa22 · report

Tasks

Information RetrievalRetrieval

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections