Background
Risk scores are essential to evidence-based cardiovascular care, but manual calculation is labor-intensive and error-prone. Large language models (LLMs) could automate this process, yet LLMs are limited by their propensity for calculation errors and factual hallucinations. Pipelines separating LLM-based data extraction from deterministic score computation may improve reliability and transparency.
Methods
We conducted a retrospective diagnostic study at a quaternary heart center in Germany (January 2020 – July 2023). Patients with atrial fibrillation (n=179) from an ablation registry and patients with severe aortic stenosis (n=76) evaluated by a heart team were included. Six LLMs (GPT-5.2, Gemini 3.1 Pro, DeepSeek-R1, Qwen3, GPT-OSS 120B, and Kimi K2.5) were tested in standalone, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and pipeline configurations to compute HAS-BLED, CHA2DS2-VASc, and EuroSCORE II scores from routine clinical reports. Accuracy was assessed against expert-adjudicated ground truth using root mean squared error (RMSE) and Krippendorff’s alpha to evaluate numerical deviation and categorical agreement, respectively.
Results
Pipeline-generated scores showed substantially higher agreement with expert adjudication than standalone LLMs, LLMs with RAG, and treating physicians (mean Krippendorff’s alpha: 0.78 vs 0.32 vs 0.39 vs 0.31) and lower deviation from ground truth (mean RMSE: 0.89 vs 5.81 vs 1.85 vs 1.34).
Conclusion
Pipelines combining expert-curated knowledge injection, LLM-based clinical data extraction, and deterministic score calculation enable accurate and scalable cardiovascular risk score computation from unstructured real-world clinical data, outperforming physician-documented scores. Such pipelines could form the basis for clinical decision-support systems that automate routine risk assessment, reduce clinician workload, and promote more consistent evidence-based care.