pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.19602 · v1 · pith:J2XP77JNnew · submitted 2026-06-17 · 💻 cs.AI

Configurable Clinical Information Extraction with Agentic RAG: What Works, What Breaks, and Why

Osman Alperen \c{C}inar-Kora\c{s} , Marie Bauer , Sameh Khattab , Merlin Engelke , Moon Kim , Stephan Settelmeier , Shigeyasu Sugawara , Fabian Freisleben
show 2 more authors
Felix Nensa Jens Kleesiek
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 20:37 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 💻 cs.AI
keywords agentic RAGclinical information extractionpatient contextlymphoma registrymetadata gapclinician verificationon-premise deploymenttemporal reasoning
0
0 comments X

The pith

An on-premise agentic RAG pipeline extracts clinical values from full patient records and achieves 96.5 percent clinician acceptance on verification.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Patient records contain hundreds of documents and thousands of data points but lack the metadata needed for reliable retrieval. Standard RAG mishandles temporal reasoning and cross-document links, so the authors built ACIE, a configurable agentic RAG system that reasons over complete contexts and cites source passages for every output. They ran the system at a university hospital and tested it against an independent lymphoma registry in which physicians checked every extracted value. Across 7,326 judgments the clinicians accepted 96.5 percent of the extractions, with acceptance by type ranging from 80 to 99 percent. The work quantifies the metadata gap and shows how it drove specific architectural choices.

Core claim

ACIE is an on-premise agentic RAG pipeline that reasons over complete patient contexts and grounds every answer in source passages. When evaluated in a retrospective lymphoma registry study in which nuclear-medicine physicians independently verify every extracted value against its cited sources, the system records 96.5 percent acceptance across 7,326 judgments, with per-type rates between 80 and 99 percent.

What carries the argument

The ACIE agentic RAG pipeline, which deploys configurable agents to handle missing document-level metadata, temporal reasoning, and cross-document dependencies while producing source-grounded outputs.

If this is right

  • Clinicians receive every extraction together with the exact source passages needed for direct verification.
  • Acceptance rates vary by information type but remain above 80 percent even for the hardest categories.
  • The on-premise design satisfies clinical privacy constraints while still allowing full-context reasoning.
  • Quantifying the metadata gap directly informs which retrieval and reasoning components must be added.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same configurable agent structure could be reused for new extraction tasks by changing only the agent instructions and verification templates.
  • High source-grounding rates suggest the pipeline could shorten the time physicians spend manually reviewing registry data.
  • Results from one disease registry leave open whether similar acceptance would appear in oncology, cardiology, or primary-care settings.

Load-bearing premise

The lymphoma registry study and its physician verification process provide a representative and unbiased test of extraction quality that generalizes beyond the specific disease area and hospital setting.

What would settle it

A comparable verification study performed in a different disease area or hospital that yields acceptance rates substantially below 80 percent would show the reported performance does not hold.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.19602 by Fabian Freisleben, Felix Nensa, Jens Kleesiek, Marie Bauer, Merlin Engelke, Moon Kim, Osman Alperen \c{C}inar-Kora\c{s}, Sameh Khattab, Shigeyasu Sugawara, Stephan Settelmeier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ACIE system overview. Clinical data from multiple hospital systems, accessed via a FHIR server, is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Patient contexts span hundreds of heterogeneous documents and thousands of structured data points, yet the document-level metadata that AI systems need for retrieval and triage is absent or incomplete. Standard retrieval-augmented generation fails on this data, mishandling temporal reasoning, cross-document dependencies, and missing metadata. We deploy ACIE (Agentic Clinical Information Extraction) at University Medicine Essen: an on-premise agentic RAG pipeline that reasons over complete patient contexts and grounds every answer in source passages for clinician verification. We quantify the metadata gap, trace the architectural decisions it shaped, and evaluate extraction alongside an independent retrospective lymphoma registry study, in which nuclear-medicine physicians verify every extracted value against its cited sources. Across 7,326 judgments, clinicians accepted 96.5\% of extractions, with per-type acceptance ranging from 80\% to 99\%.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces ACIE, an on-premise agentic RAG pipeline for clinical information extraction from large sets of heterogeneous patient documents that lack complete metadata. It addresses failures of standard RAG on temporal reasoning and cross-document dependencies, describes architectural choices shaped by the metadata gap, and evaluates the system on an independent retrospective lymphoma registry at University Medicine Essen. Nuclear-medicine physicians verified every extracted value against cited sources, yielding 96.5% acceptance across 7,326 judgments with per-type rates from 80% to 99%.

Significance. A large-scale, clinician-verified evaluation with per-type breakdowns is a methodological strength that could support practical deployment of agentic extraction systems if the results generalize. However, the single-site, single-disease design limits the assessed significance for the central claim that ACIE reliably handles heterogeneous contexts where standard RAG fails.

major comments (2)
  1. [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The 96.5% acceptance rate (7,326 judgments) rests entirely on nuclear-medicine physician verification within one lymphoma registry at a single institution. No cross-disease, multi-center, or external-registry results are reported, which directly undermines the claim that the system succeeds across heterogeneous patient contexts, temporal complexity, and missing-metadata regimes.
  2. [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: No quantitative baselines (standard RAG or other extractors), error analysis, or description of blinding in the verification process are provided. Without these, the per-type acceptance rates (80–99%) cannot be interpreted as evidence that ACIE improves on existing approaches.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract could more explicitly state the architectural decisions and failure modes analyzed in the full text to better align with the title's promise of 'what works, what breaks, and why.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address each major point below, noting where revisions to scope and content are warranted while preserving the manuscript's focus on the metadata gap and clinician-verified extraction in a complex real-world registry.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Evaluation] Evaluation section: The 96.5% acceptance rate (7,326 judgments) rests entirely on nuclear-medicine physician verification within one lymphoma registry at a single institution. No cross-disease, multi-center, or external-registry results are reported, which directly undermines the claim that the system succeeds across heterogeneous patient contexts, temporal complexity, and missing-metadata regimes.

    Authors: We agree the single-institution, single-disease design limits broad generalization claims. The evaluated registry nevertheless contains highly heterogeneous documents per patient with absent metadata, directly exercising the temporal and cross-document challenges described. We will revise the abstract, introduction, and discussion to scope claims explicitly to this setting and add a limitations paragraph on the need for future multi-center studies. No new external data will be added. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract and Methods] Abstract and Methods: No quantitative baselines (standard RAG or other extractors), error analysis, or description of blinding in the verification process are provided. Without these, the per-type acceptance rates (80–99%) cannot be interpreted as evidence that ACIE improves on existing approaches.

    Authors: Clinician acceptance against source passages is the primary metric because exhaustive ground-truth labels are unavailable. We will add, in revision, a quantitative standard-RAG baseline on a sampled subset, a per-type error analysis, and an explicit Methods description of the verification process (including blinding to extraction method). These additions will appear in the Methods and Results sections. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical verification is independent

full rationale

The paper's central result is an empirical acceptance rate (96.5% across 7,326 physician judgments) obtained from an independent retrospective lymphoma registry with external nuclear-medicine physician verification against cited sources. No equations, fitted parameters, self-definitional loops, or load-bearing self-citations are present in the derivation chain. The evaluation rests on direct human adjudication rather than any reduction to prior outputs or ansatzes. This is the normal non-circular outcome for a purely empirical systems paper.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract-only review; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities are stated. The work relies on standard assumptions of RAG and agentic systems plus the representativeness of the lymphoma registry.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5723 in / 1104 out tokens · 21218 ms · 2026-06-26T20:37:51.589948+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cui, Cheng and Sun, Ting and Liang, Suyin and Gao, Tingquan and Zhang, Zelun and Liu, Jiaxuan and Wang, Xueqing and Zhou, Changda and Liu, Hongen and Lin, Manhui and Zhang, Yue and Zhang, Yubo and Liu, Yi and Yu, Dianhai and Ma, Yanjun , journal=

  2. [2]

    and Kors, Jan A

    Seinen, Tom M. and Kors, Jan A. and van Mulligen, Erik M. and Rijnbeek, Peter R. , journal=. Using Structured Codes and Free-Text Notes to Measure Information Complementarity in Electronic Health Records:. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  3. [3]

    JAMA Network Open , volume=

    Prevalence and Sources of Duplicate Information in the Electronic Medical Record , author=. JAMA Network Open , volume=. 2022 , doi=

    2022

  4. [4]

    Data quality in hospital information systems:

    F. Data quality in hospital information systems:. International Journal of Medical Informatics , volume=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  5. [5]

    Journal of Biomedical Informatics , volume=

    Clinical Information Extraction Applications: A Literature Review , author=. Journal of Biomedical Informatics , volume=. 2018 , publisher=

    2018

  6. [6]

    Uzuner,. 2010. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=. 2011 , doi=

    2010

  7. [7]

    Henry, Sam and Buchan, Kevin and Filannino, Michele and Stubbs, Amber and Uzuner,. 2018. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=. 2020 , doi=

    2018

  8. [8]

    The 2022

    Lybarger, Kevin and Yetisgen, Meliha and Uzuner,. The 2022. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association , volume=. 2023 , doi=

    2022

  9. [9]

    Proceedings of the 6th Clinical NLP Workshop , year=

    Overview of the 2024 Shared Task on Chemotherapy Treatment Timeline Extraction , author=. Proceedings of the 6th Clinical NLP Workshop , year=

    2024

  10. [10]

    Multi-domain Clinical Natural Language Processing with

    Kraljevi. Multi-domain Clinical Natural Language Processing with. Artificial Intelligence in Medicine , volume=. 2021 , doi=

    2021

  11. [11]

    Design and implementation of a natural language processing system at the point of care:

    Jiang-Kells, Jennifer and Brandreth, James and Zhu, Leilei and Ross, Jack and Jani, Yogini and Costanza, Enrico and Amran, Maisarah and Kraljevi. Design and implementation of a natural language processing system at the point of care:. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  12. [12]

    Nature , volume=

    Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge , author=. Nature , volume=. 2023 , doi=

    2023

  13. [13]

    Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors

    Large Language Models are Few-Shot Clinical Information Extractors , author=. Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing , pages=. 2022 , publisher=. doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.130 , url=

    work page doi:10.18653/v1/2022.emnlp-main.130 2022

  14. [14]

    Frontiers in Digital Health , volume=

    Large Language Models in Real-World Clinical Workflows: A Systematic Review of Applications and Implementation , author=. Frontiers in Digital Health , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  15. [15]

    npj Digital Medicine , volume=

    Implementing Large Language Models in Healthcare While Balancing Control, Collaboration, Costs and Security , author=. npj Digital Medicine , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  16. [16]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research , volume=

    Improving Large Language Model Applications in the Medical and Nursing Domains With Retrieval-Augmented Generation: Scoping Review , author=. Journal of Medical Internet Research , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  17. [17]

    and Masanz, James J

    Savova, Guergana K. and Masanz, James J. and Ogren, Philip V. and Zheng, Jiaping and Sohn, Sunghwan and Kipper-Schuler, Karin C. and Chute, Christopher G. , journal=. Mayo Clinical Text Analysis and Knowledge Extraction System (. 2010 , doi=

    2010

  18. [18]

    Journal of Biomedical Semantics , volume=

    Knowledge Author: Facilitating User-driven, Domain Content Development to Support Clinical Information Extraction , author=. Journal of Biomedical Semantics , volume=. 2016 , doi=

    2016

  19. [19]

    2020 , doi=

    Lee, Jinhyuk and Yoon, Wonjin and Kim, Sungdong and Kim, Donghyeon and Kim, Sunkyu and So, Chan Ho and Kang, Jaewoo , journal=. 2020 , doi=

    2020

  20. [20]

    npj Digital Medicine , volume=

    A Large Language Model for Electronic Health Records , author=. npj Digital Medicine , volume=. 2022 , doi=

    2022

  21. [21]

    npj Digital Medicine , volume=

    Privacy-Preserving Large Language Models for Structured Medical Information Retrieval , author=. npj Digital Medicine , volume=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  22. [22]

    npj Precision Oncology , volume=

    A Software Pipeline for Medical Information Extraction with Large Language Models, Open Source and Suitable for Oncology , author=. npj Precision Oncology , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  23. [23]

    PLOS Digital Health , volume=

    Implementation of Large Language Models in Electronic Health Records , author=. PLOS Digital Health , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  24. [24]

    Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive

    Lewis, Patrick and Perez, Ethan and Piktus, Aleksandra and Petroni, Fabio and Karpukhin, Vladimir and Goyal, Naman and K. Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems , volume=. 2020 , doi=

    2020

  25. [25]

    2023 , doi=

    Yao, Shunyu and Zhao, Jeffrey and Yu, Dian and Du, Nan and Shafran, Izhak and Narasimhan, Karthik and Cao, Yuan , booktitle=. 2023 , doi=

    2023

  26. [26]

    Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing , volume=

    Improving Retrieval-Augmented Generation in Medicine with Iterative Follow-up Questions , author=. Pacific Symposium on Biocomputing , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  27. [27]

    Collapse of Dense Retrievers:

    Fayyaz, Mohsen and Modarressi, Ali and Schuetze, Hinrich and Peng, Nanyun , booktitle=. Collapse of Dense Retrievers:. 2025 , address=

    2025

  28. [28]

    Leveraging Interoperable Electronic Health Record (

    Palm, Julia and Saleh, Kutaiba and Scherag, Andr. Leveraging Interoperable Electronic Health Record (. JMIR Medical Informatics , volume=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  29. [29]

    Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (

    Vorisek, Carina Nina and Lehne, Moritz and Klopfenstein, Sophie Anne Ines and Mayer, Paula Josephine and Bartschke, Alexander and Haese, Thomas and Thun, Sylvia , journal=. Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (. 2022 , doi=

    2022

  30. [30]

    Implementation and User Evaluation of an On-Premise Large Language Model in a

    Gr. Implementation and User Evaluation of an On-Premise Large Language Model in a. JMIR AI , volume=. 2026 , doi=

    2026

  31. [31]

    2019 , howpublished=

    Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (. 2019 , howpublished=

    2019

  32. [32]

    Serialisation Strategy Matters: How

    Pator, Sanjoy , journal=. Serialisation Strategy Matters: How. 2026 , doi=

    2026

  33. [33]

    Let Me Speak Freely?

    Tam, Zhi Rui and Wu, Cheng-Kuang and Tsai, Yi-Lin and Lin, Chieh-Yen and Lee, Hung-yi and Chen, Yun-Nung , booktitle=. Let Me Speak Freely?. 2024 , address=

    2024

  34. [34]

    Bundesgesundheitsblatt -- Gesundheitsforschung -- Gesundheitsschutz , volume=

    Ammon, Danny and Kurscheidt, Maximilian and Buckow, Karoline and Kirsten, Toralf and L. Bundesgesundheitsblatt -- Gesundheitsforschung -- Gesundheitsschutz , volume=. 2024 , doi=

    2024

  35. [35]

    2025 , doi=

    Yang, Zongxin and Yuan, Hongyi and Sayeed, Raheel and Tan, Amelia Li Min and Cai, Enci and Moro, Mohammed and Li, Xiudi and Ying, Huaiyuan and Brown, Nicholas and Weber, Griffin and Yu, Sheng and Kohane, Isaac and Cai, Tianxi , journal=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  36. [36]

    2025 , doi=

    Gupta, Shashi Kant and Pramanik, Arijeet and Thomas, Jerrin John and Schwind, Regina and Wiener, Lauren and Raju, Avi and Kornbluth, Jeremy and Wang, Yanshan and Su, Zhaohui and Singh, Hrituraj , journal=. 2025 , doi=

    2025

  37. [37]

    2025 , address=

    Liao, Yusheng and Jiang, Shuyang and Wang, Yanfeng and Wang, Yu , booktitle=. 2025 , address=

    2025

  38. [38]

    and Moser, Ethan D

    Moon, Sungrim and Carlson, Luke A. and Moser, Ethan D. and Agnikula Kshatriya, Bhavani Singh and Smith, Carin Y. and Rocca, Walter A. and Gazzuola Rocca, Liliana and Bielinski, Suzette J. and Liu, Hongfang and Larson, Nicholas B. , journal=. Identifying Information Gaps in Electronic Health Records by Using Natural Language Processing:. 2022 , doi=

    2022