Agentic Authoring of OMOP Concept Sets from Natural Language
Chen, H.; He, X.; Dai, H.; Huang, Y.; Liu, M.; Bian, J.
Show abstract
Authoring OMOP concept sets from free-text descriptions remains a major bottleneck in scalable computable phenotyping for observational research. Existing tools support parts of this workflow but are designed primarily for interactive expert use rather than autonomous large language model (LLM) agents. We present an agentic framework that automatically generates OMOP concept sets by combining vocabulary tools, ontology extensions (RxClass, LOINC, and Disease Ontology), and procedural guidance. In ablation studies, the best configuration achieved Recall@100 of 0.965 and AP@100 of 0.875 on the development set. Cohort-level validation against OMOP-mapped EHR data yielded precision of 0.970, recall of 0.998, and a Jaccard index of 0.968. On an independent silver-standard benchmark of 457 concept-vocabulary pairs from 15 AD/ADRD target trial emulation studies, Recall@100 reached 0.835 and AP@100 reached 0.786. Task-specific tools outperformed unrestricted SQL access and PHOEBE 2.0, while progressive guidance performed best.
Matching journals
The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Study of Calibration as a Measurement of Trustworthiness of Large Language Models in Biomedical Research 94%
- Comparative Effectiveness of Medical Concept Embedding for Feature Engineering in Phenotyping 94%
- Design and Implementation of an End-to-End AI-Driven Colonoscopy Recall Workflow at Scale 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- MIMIC in the OMOP Common Data Model 92%
- Extracting social determinants of health from electronic health records: development and comparison of rule-based and large language models-based methods 92%
- Evaluating the impact on clinical task efficiency of a natural language processing algorithm for searching medical documents: Prospective crossover study 91%
"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.