Back

Leveraging Open-Source Large Language Models to Identify Undiagnosed Patients with Rare Genetic Aortopathies

Singhal, P.; Li, Z.; Yang, Z.; Nandi, T.; Morse, C.; Rodriguez, Z.; Rodriguez, A.; Kindratenko, V.; Sirugo, G.; Pyeritz, R.; Drivas, T.; Madduri, R.; Verma, A.

2025-09-07 genetic and genomic medicine
10.1101/2025.09.05.25333227 medRxiv
Show abstract

Rare genetic aortopathies are frequently undiagnosed due to phenotypic heterogeneity, and delayed diagnosis can lead to fatal cardiac outcomes. While genetic testing can enable early proactive interventions, it relies on primary care physicians to recognize a genetic basis for symptoms and then refer patients to clinical genetics. Broad-scale screening methods are needed to identify cases that do not fit an obvious diagnostic pattern. Clinical notes, rich in narrative details, may support the automated flagging of patients for genetic testing. Given the strength of Large Language Models (LLMs) in processing unstructured text, we developed an open-source LLM-enabled genetic testing recommendation pipeline, which leverages retrieval augmented generation (RAG) on curated genetic aortopathy-related corpora to utilize relevant clinical knowledge for identifying patients likely to benefit from genetic testing. The pipeline was validated using 22,510 patient progress notes from 500 individuals (250 cases, 250 controls) in the Penn Medicine BioBank, and successfully categorized 425 out of 499 patients, with one case requiring further clinician evaluation due to incomplete information. The pipeline achieved a patient-level recommendation accuracy of 0.852, precision of 0.889, sensitivity of 0.803, F1-score of 0.844, and F3-score of 0.811. Our LLM-enabled workflow that integrates RAG showed strong performance in recommending genetic testing for patients with rare genetic aortopathies, demonstrating its potential to support undiagnosed patient identification from free-text clinical notes, thereby automating early disease identification and improving patient outcomes.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.