Diagnostic accuracy of electronic medical record retrieval methods and a large language model for identifying cardiovascular events: a multisite retrospective validation study in a medical system in the United States.

OBJECTIVE

To compare the diagnostic accuracy of four available automated electronic medical record (EMR) retrieval methods, including a large language model (LLM)-assisted workflow, against manual chart adjudication for identifying cardiovascular events.

DESIGN

Retrospective diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING

Three sites within a single US tertiary health system.

PARTICIPANTS

Two adult cohorts with previously adjudicated cardiovascular outcomes were included. Cohort 1 included 2258 patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors, and Cohort 2 included 1426 patients who underwent transcatheter aortic valve replacement.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The reference standard was clinician manual chart adjudication. Outcomes included ischaemic stroke or transient ischaemic attack, myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) exacerbation or hospitalisation and a composite major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) outcome. Automated retrieval methods included International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes, primary diagnosis, problem list and a zero-shot LLM workflow. Area under the (receiver operating characteristic) curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and net reclassification improvement were assessed.

RESULTS

In Cohort 1, the LLM achieved the highest AUC for stroke (0.920; 95% CI 0.881 to 0.958), MI (0.938; 95% CI 0.905 to 0.971) and composite MACE (0.880; 95% CI 0.854 to 0.907), whereas ICD-based retrieval had a higher AUC for HF (0.882; 95% CI 0.845 to 0.918 vs 0.873; 95% CI 0.831 to 0.914). In Cohort 2, the LLM achieved the highest AUC for all evaluated outcomes: stroke (0.915; 95% CI 0.862 to 0.968), MI (0.928; 95% CI 0.839 to 1.000), HF (0.844; 95% CI 0.803 to 0.884) and composite MACE (0.862; 95% CI 0.829 to 0.895). In Cohort 1, differences in AUC between the LLM and ICD methods were not statistically significant across outcomes, whereas in Cohort 2 the LLM showed significantly higher AUC for stroke and composite MACE.

CONCLUSION

In this multisite retrospective validation study, the LLM-assisted workflow showed strong but context-dependent performance for identifying cardiovascular events from the EMR. Performance varied by outcome and cohort, and ICD-based retrieval remained competitive for some use cases. These findings support a complementary role for LLM-assisted extraction in retrospective cardiovascular outcomes research.