Mihai V. Podgoreanu | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Learning a Continuous Sepsis Severity Score Without Hour-by-Hour Supervision: A Two-Site Retrospective Study

Currently used sepsis severity indices rely on fixed variables and weights established decades ago, which are coarsely discretized and calibrated to a cohort that no longer reflects contemporary critical care. No alternative learned directly from patient trajectories is in routine use. We conducted a retrospective two-cohort study on a total of 29,116 and 7,691 adult patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria from two hospital systems in Massachusetts and Georgie, respectively. We developed a sepsis index using 43 routinely charted variables over a 72-hour treatment window. Unlike previous studies, we use mortality as a treatment-level ranking signal rather than a per-state target, allowing credit to be redistributed non-uniformly across timesteps. Evaluation was done on a permanent 20% test holdout, using clinical vignettes and Spearman correlation. Uncertainty intervals were obtained by bootstrap resampling of whole patients. Under this ranking scheme, non-survivors scored 1.19-1.64 points higher than survivors on a 0-10 scale within all strata of baseline SOFA-2, with similar results stratifying within lactate, mean arterial pressure (MAP), and creatinine. Within-patient change in the index correlated with change in lactate (Spearman rho = 0.39; n = 1,854). Similar, weaker correlations were found for MAP and creatinine. On a cohort level, cross-institutional agreement measured by Spearman correlation between models trained on different sites, were 70-77% of same-site correlation. External within-patient correlations were 0.54 and 0.59 against ceilings of 0.92 and 0.90. Our index also correlated with established indices, while null controls stayed near zero. Our index demonstrated hourly prognostic information that meaningfully separates patient outcomes and is consistent with clinical expectation, indicating potential as a decision support tool complementing clinical judgement.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Evaluating Large Language Models for Automated Clinical Abstraction in Pulmonary Embolism Registries: Performance Across Model Sizes, Versions, and Parameters

Pulmonary embolism (PE) registries accelerate practice-improving research but depend on resource-intensive manual abstraction of radiology reports. We evaluated whether openly available large-language models (LLMs) can automate concept extraction from computed-tomography PE (CTPE) reports without sacrificing data quality. Four Llama-3 (L3) variants (3.0 8 B, 3.1 8 B, 3.1 70 B, 3.3 70 B) and two reviewer models Phi-4 (P4) 14 B and Gemma-3 27 B (G3) were tested on 250 dual-annotated CTPE reports each from MIMIC-IV and Duke University. Outcomes were accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) versus a human gold standard across model sizes, temperature settings, and shot counts. Mean accuracy across all concepts increased with scale: 0.83 (L3-0 8 B), 0.91 (L3-1 8 B), and 0.96 for both 70 B variants; P4 14 B achieved 0.98; G3 matched. Accuracy differed by < 0.03 between datasets, underscoring external robustness. In dual-model concordance analysis (L3 70 B + P4 14 B), PE-presence PPV was >= 0.95 and NPV >= 0.98, while location, thrombus burden, right-heart strain, and image-quality artifacts each maintained PPV >= 0.90 and NPV >= 0.95. Fewer than 4% of individual concept annotations were discordant, and complete agreement was observed in more than 75% of reports. G3 performed comparably. LLMs therefore offer a scalable, accurate solution for PE registry abstraction, and a dual-model review workflow can further safeguard data quality with minimal human oversight.

cs.CL↗