EviCare: Enhancing Diagnosis Prediction with Deep Model-Guided Evidence for In-Context Reasoning
Authors: Hengyu Zhang, Xuyun Zhang, Pengxiang Zhan, Linhao Luo, Hang Lv, Yanchao Tan, Shirui Pan, Carl Yang
Organizations: Macquarie University Sydney, Australia · Fuzhou University Fuzhou, China · Monash University Melbourne, Australia · Griffith University Brisbane, Australia · Emory University Atlanta, USA
Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have enabled promising progress in diagnosis prediction from electronic health records (EHRs). However, existing LLM-based approaches tend to overfit to historically observed diagnoses, often overlooking novel yet clinically important conditions that are critical for early intervention. To address this, we propose EviCare, an in-context reasoning framework that integrates deep model guidance into LLM-based diagnosis prediction. Rather than prompting LLMs directly with raw EHR inputs, EviCare performs (1) deep model inference for candidate selection, (2) evidential prioritization for set-based EHRs, and (3) relational evidence construction for novel diagnosis prediction. These signals are then composed into an adaptive in-context prompt to guide LLM reasoning in an accurate and interpretable manner. Extensive experiments on two real-world EHR benchmarks (MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV) demonstrate that EviCare achieves significant performance gains, which consistently outperforms both LLM-only and deep model-only baselines by an average of 20.65% across precision and accuracy metrics. The improvements are particularly notable in challenging novel diagnosis prediction, yielding average improvements of 30.97%.
Figures & tables
Figure 1. Diagnosis Prediction Patterns Across Models. (a) LLMs tend to predict repeating historical diagnoses (e.g., CHD); (b) Deep models are effective at predicting novel diagnoses (e.g., MD) but lack explanation; (c) Our method integrates deep model-guided evidence into LLMs to achieve accurate and explainable predictions (e.g., EPC → MD). (d) Proportion of predictions: historical (solid bars) vs. novel (hatched bars); (e) Overall prediction performance (Precision@10, O-Correct); (f) Performance on novel diagnoses (Precision@10, N-Correct).
Figure 2. The overall framework of our proposed EviCare , which consists of (1) deep model inference for Candidate Selection , (2) Evidential Prioritization for set-based EHRs, (3) Relational Evidence Construction for novel diagnosis prediction, and (4) LLM-based Diagnosis Pred iction via evidence-driven in-context learning.
Dataset
MIMIC-III
MIMIC-IV
# of patients
5,449
79,393
# of visits
14,141
329,605
Avg. # visits per patient
2.60
4.15
Avg. # CCS per visit
12.08
11.30
Avg. # Novel CCS per visit
6.15
4.82
Max. # visits per patient
29
169
Table 1. Statistics of the datasets used in our experiments.
Task
Novel
Overall
Metric
Visit-Level
Code-Level
Visit-Level
Code-Level
P@5
P@10
Acc@5
Acc@10
P@10
P@20
Acc@10
Acc@20
LLaMA3.1
1.01 ±0.09
2.22 ±0.47
0.43 ±0.19
2.19 ±0.45
41.19 ±2.11
42.06 ±1.03
30.46 ±0.84
39.88 ±0.71
Qwen3
0.65 ±0.05
2.76 ±0.51
0.68 ±0.16
2.54 ±0.28
47.03 ±1.05
48.61 ±1.12
32.73 ±0.66
46.10 ±1.02
RETAIN
10.14 ±0.17
16.41 ±0.24
6.95 ±0.18
15.50 ±0.21
38.69 ±0.18
45.62 ±0.26
27.68 ±0.24
44.15 ±0.23
StageNet
12.91 ±0.12
20.39 ±0.23
8.76 ±0.18
19.27 ±0.23
35.70 ±0.17
43.59 ±0.24
25.71 ±0.23
42.83 ±0.19
Table 2. Results of novel and overall diagnosis prediction performance on the MIMIC-III dataset with 5% training data. The best results are highlighted in bold while the second best are underlined .
Metric
Visit-Level
Code-Level
P@5
P@10
Acc@5
Acc@10
LLaMA3.1
5.29 ±0.76
6.13 ±0.66
4.46 ±0.56
7.31 ±0.70
Qwen3
5.14 ±0.46
6.36 ±0.61
4.36 ±0.28
7.53 ±0.74
RETAIN
8.12 ±0.06
14.03 ±0.08
5.71 ±0.11
12.14 ±0.15
StageNet
7.81 ±0.06
13.10 ±0.07
5.38 ±0.10
11.20 ±0.11
TRANS
9.03 ±0.07
14.35 ±0.11
6.31 ±0.14
12.32 ±0.13
Table 3. Results of novel diagnosis prediction performance on the MIMIC-IV dataset with 5% training data. The best results are highlighted in bold while the second best are underlined .
Task
Novel
Overall
Metric
Visit-Level
Code-Level
Visit-Level
Code-Level
P@5
P@10
Acc@5
Acc@10
P@10
P@20
Acc@10
Acc@20
Qwen3-8B (Base)
0.65 ±0.05
2.76 ±0.51
0.68 ±0.16
2.54 ±0.28
47.03 ±1.05
48.61 ±1.12
32.73 ±0.66
46.10 ±1.02
+ Candidate
9.61 ±0.42
12.11 ±0.57
6.45 ±0.43
11.04 ±0.62
50.81 ±0.82
52.50 ±0.74
35.89 ±0.79
49.05 ±0.69
+ Prioritization
10.71 ±0.77
14.34 ±0.53
7.53 ±0.68
13.95 ±1.03
52.61 ±0.76
54.19 ±0.78
37.17 ±0.55
51.52 ±0.70
+ Relational (Full)
21.54 ±1.60
24.41 ±1.16
14.48 ±0.64
22.05 ±0.57
51.73 ±0.72
55.05 ±0.95
36.44 ±0.47
52.26 ±0.74
Table 4. Ablation study of EviCare components on MIMIC-III.
Figure 3. P@10 performance on novel and overall diagnosis prediction under varying candidate CCS sizes (MIMIC-III).
Method
P@10
Reasoning Example Highlights
Qwen (CoT)
3.17
“ Atrial flutter and lung edema are often seen in heart failure and pneumonia ”
Qwen (SC)
4.16
“ Cardiomyopathies and dysrhythmias are strong indicators of heart failure”
EviCare (Ours)
24.58
“AICD adjustment suggests conduction issues , which links to nonhypertensive heart failure”
Table 5. Comparison with different reasoning paradigm.
Method
Diagnosis Prediction Set
Input EHR Data
ICD : Cardiac complications, not elsewhere classified ( CNC ); Acute pancreatitis ( AP ); Peritoneal adhesions postoperative postinfection ( Papp ); Congestive heart failure, unspecified ( CHFu ); … CCS : Complications of surgical procedures or medical care ( CSPM ); Pancreatic disorders (not diabetes) ( PD ); Other gastrointestinal disorders ( OGD ); Congestive heart failure; nonhypertensive ( CHFn ); …
Ground-Truth Num:10
Coronary atherosclerosis and other heart disease( CAHD ) ; CHFn , Peripheral and visceral atherosclerosis( PVA ); CSPM ; Deficiency and other anemia( DOA ); Acute posthemorrhagic anemia( APA ); Essential hypertension( EH );…
Qwen3-8B Correct: 3
CHFn ( …directly listed in the patient’s history…is a complication of AP ..can lead respiratory failure…also in history .)
CSPM ( …listed in the patient’s history…linked to Papp and AP … )
PVA ( …patient’s history of heart disease and CNC supports this possibility… )
Pulmonary heart disease (…patient history has CHFn ,…lead pulmonary hypertension an pulmonary heart disease.)
Table 6. Case study on a MIMIC-III patient comparing base model (Qwen3-8B), deep model (BoxLM) and EviCare under overall CCS prediction settings. Blue = Novel CCS in ground truth; Red = Incorrect prediction. Arrows (→) indicate evidence chains inferred from patient history to support predicted diagnoses.
LLM
Deep
Novel
Overall
Avg. Imp.
LLaMA3.1
None
2.22
41.19
–
RETAIN
20.73
48.21
425.4%
BoxLM
22.15
50.09
459.4%
Qwen3
None
2.76
47.03
–
RETAIN
23.59
49.66
380.1%
BoxLM
24.41
51.73
397.4%
Table 7. Generalization of EviCare across different LLMs on MIMIC-III. The metric used is Precision@10.
Appendix figures & tables4 assets
Supplementary material from the paper’s appendix.
Appendix
Metric
Visit-Level
Code-Level
P@10
P@20
Acc@10
Acc@20
LLaMA3.1
38.32 ±1.02
43.62 ±1.36
31.22 ±0.63
33.82 ±0.72
Qwen3
50.42 ±0.90
50.99 ±1.20
36.79 ±0.69
46.06 ±0.78
RETAIN
43.19 ±0.08
49.05 ±0.07
31.49 ±0.07
45.60 ±0.09
StageNet
37.69 ±0.08
43.45 ±0.07
27.69 ±0.06
40.89 ±0.07
TRANS
36.00 ±0.09
41.95 ±0.08
26.52 ±0.07
39.83 ±0.08
Appendix
Table 8. Results of overall diagnosis prediction performance on the MIMIC-IV dataset with 5% training data. The best results are highlighted in bold while the second best are underlined .
Figure 4. P@10 performance on novel and overall diagnosis prediction under different training data ratios (MIMIC-III).
Novel
P@5
P@10
Acc@5
Acc@10
Qwen (CoT)
1.25
3.17
1.63
3.07
Qwen (SC)
2.09
4.26
2.71
4.02
EviCare
22.03
24.58
14.56
22.12
Overall
P@10
P@20
Acc@10
Acc@20
Qwen (CoT)
41.91
45.66
29.12
43.80
Qwen (SC)
42.23
46.09
30.15
44.26
Appendix
Table 9. Performance Comparison of Different Reasoning Strategies.
Patient History
Other primary cardiomyopathies; Paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia; Fitting and adjustment of AICD; Cardiac dysrhythmias; Conduction disorders; …
Target Diagnosis
Congestive heart failure; nonhypertensive
Qwen (CoT)
The patient has a history of "Other primary cardiomyopathies" and "Paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia" which are both associated with heart failure.
Qwen (SC)
1. The patient has "Other primary cardiomyopathies" and "Cardiac dysrhythmias", both of which are precursors or components of nonhypertensive heart failure. Although not explicitly stated, the progression is clinically plausible.
2. The patient’s history includes "Other primary cardiomyopathies" (ICD) and "Cardiac dysrhythmias" (CCS), which are strong indicators of heart failure. Cardiomyopathies can progress to heart failure, and dysrhythmias like paroxysmal ventricular tachycardia are common in heart failure.
3. (No relevant prediction)
EviCare (Ours)
This is supported by the patient’s history of cardiac dysrhythmias, other primary cardiomyopathies, and AICD adjustment. These conditions are often associated with heart failure, especially in the context of chronic disease and device management.
Appendix
Table 10. Explanation comparison for a novel diagnosis prediction case.
Predicting future clinical outcomes from electronic health records (EHR) remains challenging due to the complexity and heterogeneity of patient data. LLMs have shown strong potential for such predictive tasks, yet existing approaches mainly focus on enhancing medical knowledge through distillation or RAG while relying on the model's internal ability to interpret contextual information. In this work, we present ReMedi (Reasoner for Medical Clinical Prediction), a framework for improving clinical outcome prediction from EHR. ReMedi generates rationale-answer pairs using a challenging sample regeneration mechanism for complex clinical questions, which leverages ground-truth answers as hints to enhance reasoning for further fine-tuning and preference tuning. ReMedi integrates ground-truth outcome guidance into the preference data construction loop, regenerating rationale-answer variants. By tuning on these rationale-answer pairs, the model improves its predictive performance. Experiments on multiple EHR prediction tasks demonstrate substantial gains of up to 19.9 percent over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of F1 score, underscoring ReMedi's effectiveness in real-world clinical prediction.
Yushi Cao, Yiming Chen, Hongchao Jiang +2
ASUS Intelligent Cloud Services (AICS), Singapore · NTU Artificial Intelligence Center of Research Excellence (NTU AI-CoRE), Taiwan · National University of Singapore, Singapore
Large language models (LLMs) offer promising potential for next-visit diagnosis prediction, owing to their ability to integrate longitudinal clinical evidence and reason over it in natural language. However, reinforcement learning for LLM reasoning commonly rewards each trajectory according to the correctness of its final answer. In next-visit diagnosis prediction, multiple diagnoses can be simultaneously valid, but independently rewarding one diagnosis per trajectory does not distinguish repeated hits from coverage of different diagnoses. The policy can therefore concentrate on a few correct diagnoses, leaving others uncovered. Meanwhile, LLM tokenizers can split ICD codes into several generic tokens with limited clinical meaning, requiring multiple decoding steps to predict each diagnosis and hindering reasoning over a large disease vocabulary. To address both challenges, we propose CARing, a framework that represents diagnoses with compositional Semantic IDs (SIDs) and optimizes reasoning trajectories for multi-label coverage. Concretely, we first encode ontology-enriched disease semantics into compact SIDs through residual quantization, and ground the resulting SID tokens in natural language and longitudinal EHR contexts through multi-task alignment and reasoning-enriched training to unlock transferable LLM reasoning. CARing further improves unordered multi-label prediction through a coverage reward for reinforcement learning and multi-positive supervision. At inference time, the model supports both efficient direct constrained decoding and multi-chain reasoning with rank fusion. On MIMIC-III and MIMIC-IV, CARing exceeds all EHR-trained baselines in weighted F1 and attains the highest top-k recall at every reported cutoff, including R@30 of 46.04% and 46.52% in reasoning mode. Our codes and logs are available at https://github.com/zmlxzyh/CARing-Codes-Logs.
Kaisong Zhang, Haotian Fang, Junmeng Zhou +3
Fuzhou University · Shanghai Jiao Tong University · Beihang University
Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong natural-language reasoning abilities for clinical decision support, but struggle to effectively model structured longitudinal electronic health records (EHRs). In contrast, EHR foundation models can learn predictive patient representations, yet lack interpretable language-based reasoning. To bridge this gap, we propose ChatHealthAI, a multimodal reasoning framework that aligns structured EHR representations from a pretrained EHR foundation model with the semantic space of a frozen LLM through a task-aware resampler. By integrating longitudinal patient representations with refined clinical event descriptions, ChatHealthAI enables clinically grounded natural-language reasoning while maintaining accurate patient prediction. We evaluated ChatHealthAI on three clinical predictive tasks from the EHRSHOT benchmark. Results show that ChatHealthAI improves reasoning quality and interpretability while preserving competitive predictive performance. These findings highlight the potential of integrating EHR foundation models with pretrained LLMs for interpretable clinical prediction.
Bo-Hong Wang, Baicheng Peng, Ruilin Wang +3
School of Computer Science, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada · Mila - Quebec AI Institute, Montreal, QC, Canada