Multi-lingual Multi-institutional Electronic Health Record based Predictive Model
Authors: Kyunghoon Hur, Heeyoung Kwak, Jinsu Jang, Nakhwan Kim, Edward Choi
Organizations: Kim Jaechul Graduate School of AI, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon 34141, Republic of Korea · NAVER Digital Healthcare LAB, Republic of Korea · Department of Health and Medical Information, Ansan University, Ansan-si, Gyeonggi-do 15328, Republic of Korea · Institute of Human Behavior and Genetics, Korea University College of Medicine, 02841, Republic of Korea
Large-scale EHR prediction across institutions is hindered by substantial heterogeneity in schemas and code systems. Although Common Data Models (CDMs) can standardize records for multi-institutional learning, the manual harmonization and vocabulary mapping are costly and difficult to scale. Text-based harmonization provides an alternative by converting raw EHR into a unified textual form, enabling pooled learning without explicit standardization. However, applying this paradigm to multi-national datasets introduces an additional layer of heterogeneity, which is "language" that must be addressed for truly scalable EHRs learning. In this work, we investigate multilingual multi-institutional learning for EHR prediction, aiming to enable pooled training across multinational ICU datasets without manual standardization. We compare two practical strategies for handling language barriers: (i) directly modeling multilingual records with multilingual encoders, and (ii) translating non-English records into English via LLM-based word-level translation. Across seven public ICU datasets, ten clinical tasks with multiple prediction windows, translation-based lingual alignment yields more reliable cross-dataset performance than multilingual encoders. The multi-institutional learning model consistently outperforms strong baselines that require manual feature selection and harmonization, and also surpasses single-dataset training. We further demonstrate that text-based framework with lingual alignment effectively performs transfer learning via few-shot fine-tuning, with additional gains. To our knowledge, this is the first study to aggregate multilingual multinational ICU EHR datasets into one predictive model, providing a scalable path toward language-agnostic clinical prediction and future global multi-institutional EHR research.
Figures & tables
Fig. 1: Overview of the multilingual multi-institutional EHR predictive framework. EHR time-series from multiple hospitals and nations—recorded under heterogeneous code systems, schemas, and languages (e.g., English, Dutch, German)—are harmonized into a unified textual/event representation and jointly used to train a single foundational predictive model. The resulting model is evaluated across diverse ICU prediction tasks, demonstrating scalable pooled learning without manual standardization.
Datasets
MIMIC-IV
eICU
NWICU
EHRShot
UMCdb
HiRID
SICdb
Nation
USA
USA
USA
USA
Netherlands
Switzerland
Austria
Language
English
English
English
English
Dutch
German
German
No. of Observations
65511
98904
42137
6739
23182
33905
27461
No. of ICU stays
65511
98904
42137
6739
23182
33905
27461
Mean No. of events per sample
88.7
48.5
74.8
247.6
118.9
149.3
111.4
No. of Unique code
9565
6302
8173
11942
9041
10087
8526
TABLE I: Statistics of datasets
Fig. 2: Language composition of clinical text across seven ICU EHR datasets. Each bar shows the percentage of tokens identified as English (en), Dutch (nl), German (de), or undetected by our language identification pipeline. “Undetected” denotes tokens that are not present in standard word lexicons and are not confidently assigned to any language by the identifier—typically domain-specific abbreviations or proper nouns (e.g., “PO” for oral administration).
Fig. 3: Comparison of conventional multi-institutional learning and our multi-lingual text-based workflow. The conventional pipeline (top) requires each hospital to manually select, share, and align a common feature set across heterogeneous EHR schemas and code systems before model training. In contrast, the proposed workflow (bottom) linearizes raw EHR tables from different institutions and languages into a unified textual representation, applies LLM-based translation to standardize non-English content into English, and trains a single pooled model directly on the harmonized text for downstream task prediction with minimal preprocessing.
Dataset
Train mode
YAIB*
Rajikomar*
GenHPF
ReMed
Code-base
Code-base
EnTok
MLTok
LLM Align
EnTok
MLTok
LLM Align
MIMIC-IV
Single
0.782
0.775
0.767
0.767
0.767
0.777
0.774
0.777
Multi
0.770
0.768
0.771
0.770
0.779
0.780
0.780
0.783
eICU
Single
0.774
0.760
0.754
0.754
0.754
0.771
0.767
0.771
Multi
0.757
0.753
0.761
0.761
0.775
0.772
0.773
0.780
EHRshot
Single
0.814
0.805
0.802
0.798
0.802
0.812
0.808
0.812
TABLE II: Multi-institutional learning results on seven ICU datasets. For each dataset, AUROC values are averaged over all prediction tasks and five random seeds under two training regimes: Single (trained on one dataset) and Multi (one model jointly trained on the union of all datasets and evaluated per site). YAIB* and Rajkomar* are code-based baselines, while GenHPF and ReMed are schema-agnostic text-based frameworks evaluated with different tokenization/alignment strategies (EnTok: English-only tokenizer; MLTok: multilingual tokenizer; LLM Align: aligned to EnTok). Bold values indicate the best performance within each dataset and training regime; Avg reports the mean across datasets.
Fig. 4: Cross-site transfer learning performance across seven datasets when fine-tuning on only 10% of the target data for ReMED+LLM Align (left) and YAIB (right). Each heatmap shows AUROC when training on the source dataset (rows) and evaluating on the target dataset (columns); diagonal cells represents the single-dataset models (no transfer) , while off-diagonal cells correspond to transfer learning via fine-tuning on the target site.
Dataset
Train mode
No align
DictTrans
LLM Align
EnTok
MedGemma
Qwen3
MIMIC-IV
Single
0.775 (0.005)
0.770 (0.005)
0.773 (0.005)
0.777 (0.006)
Multi
0.780 (0.007)
0.779 (0.008)
0.780 (0.008)
0.783 (0.009)
eICU
Single
0.769 (0.004)
0.756 (0.004)
0.769 (0.005)
0.771 (0.006)
Multi
0.772 (0.007)
0.775 (0.008)
0.782 (0.009)
0.780 (0.009)
EHRshot
Single
0.812 (0.005)
0.804 (0.005)
0.810 (0.004)
0.812 (0.006)
TABLE III: Ablation study of lingual alignment strategies. We evaluate (i) no alignment and using English tokenization (No align; EnTok), (ii) dictionary-based translation (DictTrans), and (iii) LLM-based alignment using MedGemma and Qwen3. Entries report AUROC averaged over all prediction tasks and five random seeds, with standard deviation in parentheses. Bold and underlined values denote the best and second-best performance within each dataset and training regime, respectively.
EnTok
GenHPF-SSL
BERT-mini
Bio-Clinical-BERT
Single
0.776
0.775
0.776
Multi
0.788
0.787
0.788
MLTok
GenHPF-SSL
DistilBERT-multi-lingual
XLM-RoBERTa
Single
0.773
0.772
0.772
TABLE IV: Comparison of English-only (EnTok) and multilingual (MLTok) text encoders within ReMed. AUROC values are averaged over all prediction tasks and five random seeds. GenHPF-SSL denotes the contrastive self-supervised encoder introduced in GenHPF. The EnTok block compares English encoders (BERT-mini, Bio-Clinical-BERT), while the MLTok block compares multilingual encoders (DistilBERT-multilingual, XLM-RoBERTa).
Fig. 5: Cross-site transfer learning performance across seven datasets when fully finetuning of the target data for ReMed+LLM Align (left) and YAIB (right). Each heatmap shows AUROC when training on the source dataset (rows) and evaluating on the target dataset (columns); diagonal cells represents the single-dataset models (no transfer) , while off-diagonal cells correspond to transfer learning via fine-tuning on the target site.
TABLE V: Statistics for multi-class classification tasks. All numbers are represented as percent.
Dept. of Computing, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom · UKRI Centres in AI for Health, United Kingdom · School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom +2
Department of Computer Science, Hong Kong Baptist University · Division of Artificial Intelligence, Lingnan University · School of Nursing, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University