Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study investigates discrepancies between medication information in clinic notes and structured electronic health record (EHR) medication histories, identifying causes such as normalization errors and terminology differences. By employing a note-grounded approach that integrates large language models for reference construction and deterministic normalization, the authors achieved significant improvements in medication agreement metrics. The results reveal that while only 16.44% of note-derived rows had exact overlap with structured records, a substantial 90.34% showed temporal overlap, highlighting the complexity of medication documentation across sources.
Discrepancies in medication documentation reveal that nearly 90% of clinic notes may still align temporally with structured EHRs, despite low exact agreement.
Clinic notes and structured electronic health record (EHR) medication history often contain different medication information. Same-visit disagreement between these sources may result from note-side normalization errors, differences in terminology or timing, or actual differences in documentation. We developed a note-grounded approach that uses large language model (LLM) assisted reference construction, targeted and random human review, deterministic medication normalization, and semantic and temporal comparisons with structured medication history. We evaluated all normalization results on a patient-level held-out test set to limit adaptation to the study cohort. On 5,403 held-out mention rows, exact canonical agreement improved from 0.7226 with surface-exact matching to 0.8429 after lexical cleanup and curated alias mapping. In a random audit of previously unaudited rows, canonical-label agreement was 0.9210 among evaluable valid medication mentions, whereas treatment-action attribution was lower at 0.5326. In the full-cohort characterization analysis, only 16.44% of note-derived rows had same-visit exact overlap with structured medication history, but 55.17% had same-visit semantic overlap, 90.34% had same-visit or +/-30-day overlap, and only 3.97% remained in the strict no-structured-overlap bucket under broad project-level mapping. An ontology-backed sensitivity analysis further showed that held-out strict Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP)-backed no-overlap fell from 43.99% to 36.68% after a development-derived alias supplement. These results show that note-to-structured-medication mismatch can arise from normalization errors, differences in terminology, and differences in documentation timing.
