Grounded Adjudication of Variations across Extracted TimeLines (GAVEL): Comparing Clinical Timelines Against Their Case Reports
Authors: Jack Cummins, Sayantan Kumar, Ketan Tamirisa, Jeremy C. Weiss
Organizations: Princeton University, Princeton, New Jersey, USA · National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, Maryland, USA · Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, Missouri, USA
Existing pipelines for clinical timeline extraction from case reports are evaluated using an expert reference and are limited by imperfect reference annotations and imprecise event alignment. We developed GAVEL, an LLM judge protocol that compares two timelines with the case report and returns a discrepancy type, verdict, and report passage for each difference. We evaluated the event matcher, reviewed 2,738 findings from GPT5.6sol and DeepSeek V3.2, ranked six LLM extractors and two human annotators, and tested GAVEL guided merging. True match rates were 60% immediately below and 48% immediately above the 0.10 cutoff. Manual review confirmed 89.4% and 88.6% of findings. Across 126 reports, merged timelines were preferred in 77.0% of comparisons (95% CI, 69.8 to 84.1%) and reduced discrepancies attributed to the evaluated timeline from 7.63 to 0.85 per report. GAVEL supports report-based comparison and revision without treating either timeline as ground truth.
Figures & tables
Figure 1: The GAVEL adjudication protocol. The LLM judge uses the case report to compare two candidate timelines: it links events to report text, matches corresponding events, and compares values and timestamps. For each discrepancy, it returns a type, a verdict, and the report sentence cited for that verdict, or indicates that no supporting sentence was found. Neither timeline serves as the reference.
Source sentence
“During a telephone call 2 weeks after his visit, the patient described worsening erythema surrounding the biopsy site with yellow, thickened drainage. Thus, he was started on doxycycline, 100 mg twice daily for a week.”
Timeline A (GPT-5)
doxycycline 100 mg twice daily started at t=336 h
Timeline B (o4-mini)
doxycycline 100 mg twice daily started at t=504 h
Type
TIMING
Verdict
A . The initial visit anchors t=0 and the report places the call two weeks later, giving 336 h. Timeline B’s placement is three weeks after the visit and is unsupported.
Table 1: A worked GAVEL adjudication from report PMC6143713. Both timelines record the same event string, so the discrepancy is purely temporal. The report states the interval explicitly, and the judge returns a typed verdict linked to the source text supporting the verdict.
Figure 2: Source-confirmed match rates across PubMedBERT cosine-distance bands among 100 aligned event pairs (25 per stratum). Bars show the percent judged to describe the same clinical event; whiskers denote Wilson 95% confidence intervals. The shaded 0.08–0.12 region spans the 0.10 cutoff used in prior timeline evaluations and contains approximately 11% of all aligned pairs.
Error type
GPT-5.6-sol
DeepSeek V3.2
Total
Timing ruled unclear
59
67
126
Undercalled over-extraction
64
9
73
Anchor forced on two-sided case
21
14
35
Missed one-sided finding
1
13
14
Overcalled duplicate
7
7
14
Perception timing
6
8
14
Table 2: Manual validation and error taxonomy for GAVEL judge findings. Confirmation rate is calculated among findings reviewed by the primary reviewer. The five categories grouped as “Other” were malformed finding, false one-sided finding, wrong placement credited, matching error, and indeterminate timing.
Figure 3: Bradley–Terry ratings with case-bootstrap 95% intervals:(A) eight-source round robin; (B) corpus-scale class-leader comparison; and (C) head-to-head record among the corpus-scale entrants, giving reports won, lost, and tied with mean share of weighted discrepancy points.
Entrant
Default
Timing-weighted
Event-weighted
GPT-5
1698 (1588–1831)
1692 (1544–1868)
1701 (1617–1809)
Claude Opus 5
1672 (1577–1813)
1678 (1564–1852)
1668 (1585–1785)
o4-mini
1610 (1546–1687)
1642 (1559–1743)
1576 (1515–1652)
Annotator 1
1558 (1463–1652)
1560 (1444–1667)
1558 (1466–1651)
GLM-5.2
1494 (1402–1582)
1509 (1408–1592)
1492 (1415–1577)
Gemma 4
1441 (1354–1519)
1438 (1342–1517)
1428 (1344–1509)
Table 3: Leaderboard stability across three scoring rubrics. The default rubric weights over-annotation 3.0, false duplicates, wrong times and wrong values 2.0, missed positives 1.0, and missed negatives and recurrences 0.5. The timing rubric raises wrong time to 6.0 and lowers the omission categories to 0.2. The events rubric raises over-annotation and false duplicates to 6.0 and all omission categories to 3.0 while lowering wrong time to 1.5. Ratings are Bradley–Terry abilities on the mean-centred scale with case-bootstrap 95% intervals.
Figure 4: One report adjudicated and merged. Each row is a proposal made against the GPT-5 base timeline by one of the two proposer timelines, the merger’s decision, and the resulting entry. The merger consults the report before acting: the first proposal is declined because the report states the admission separately, while the last is applied because the report supports only that tirzepatide was advised against, not that it was stopped.
Entrant
Wrong time
Missed positive
Missed negative
Missed recurrence
Wrong value
False duplicate
Over- annotated
Total
A. Eight-source round robin
GPT-5
2.6
2.7
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.2
6.0
Claude Opus 5
1.4
5.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.3
0.0
7.2
o4-mini
0.9
5.0
0.7
0.0
0.1
0.3
0.1
7.1
Annotator 1 (A1)
3.3
2.6
0.6
0.0
0.5
0.3
0.1
7.4
GLM-5.2
3.2
5.7
0.4
0.1
0.7
0.7
0.1
10.9
Table 4: Mean pairwise discrepancy instances by entrant: (A) Stage 2 per report across seven opponents; (B) Stage 3 per entrant–report matchup; and (C) GPT-5 base versus merged timelines per report across 126 reports. Panel C values are shown to two decimal places. Because these are pairwise instances, the same underlying error may appear in comparisons with multiple opponents.
Clinical timelines support treatment-window analysis and leakage-free modeling, but discharge summaries often obscure chronology and structured EHR tables describe only part of the patient course. We present a UID-preserving framework that links each narrative event occurrence to its source span and retains that identity through text-only estimation, structured-evidence retrieval, timestamped source-row grounding, and joint revision. We also present GAVEL, an LLM judge that compares two UID-aligned timelines against the narrative and structured record, to augment prior matching and temporal assessments. Across six open-weight models and 40 mixed-critical-care summaries, the GLM 5.2 multimodal revision, as compared to its text-only variant, improved temporal agreement without reducing event recovery and performed competitively with clinician annotations, while other model revisions showed smaller gains and lower overall performance. Ablations showed that UIDs primarily preserve event retention, whereas source-row linkage supports temporal placement. Blinded human review upheld most GAVEL findings, and controlled adjudication favored multimodal over text-only GLM 5.2 but did not for DeepSeek V3.2. In developing the UID and judge pipeline, we are able to demonstrate 43% increased event recovery, a framework competitive with clinician annotations, and a system with occurrence-level provenance for both reconstruction and evaluation.
Sayantan Kumar, Nicolas Grimaldi, Jack Cummins +1
National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, USA · Princeton University, USA
Clinical language models increasingly operate over electronic health records (EHRs), yet patient records are not stored as temporally grounded trajectories. Clinical notes describe symptoms, assessments, and disease progression, but often compress or narratively reorder events. Structured EHR rows provide timestamps for labs, medications, vitals, and procedures, but capture only part of the clinical story. We formulate clinical timeline reconstruction as retrieval-augmented temporal grounding: constructing a patient trajectory by using narrative text for event semantics and structured rows as partial temporal evidence. We introduce a scaffolded workflow that extracts central narrative events, builds an initial temporal scaffold, attaches non-central events, and calibrates timestamps using retrieved structured EHR rows. We evaluate on 40 discharge summaries, including 15 i2b2-derived and 25 MIMIC-IV summaries, each with manual gold-standard timelines and aligned structured EHR data. Across models, multimodal calibration left event match rates largely unchanged and generally improved temporal performance: mean paired case-level multimodal-unimodal differences were positive in 7 of 12 model-metric comparisons across concordance and AULTC, with none negative. However, uncertainty was substantial given the 40-case sample; paired case-level bootstrap intervals excluded zero only for the DeepSeek V3.2 AULTC improvement. A gap analysis shows that 35.1% of text-derived events have no structured counterpart. These findings support treating structured EHR data as partial temporal evidence for narrative-derived patient trajectories.
Sayantan Kumar, Shahriar Noroozizadeh, Juyong Kim +1
Division of Intramural Research National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health Bethesda, MD, USA
Query-centric cross-document event timeline extraction aims to construct event timelines from multiple documents under diverse query focuses. The task is very challenging due to the heterogeneous event modeling and reasoning requirements arising from both the intrinsic complexity of cross-document timeline construction and the diversity of query focuses. In this paper, we propose TimelineAgent, an LLM-based multi-agent framework featuring a multi-stage reasoning workflow, where heterogeneous event features are organized into reusable skills and orchestrated through a goal-oriented protocol. To facilitate evaluation, we construct a benchmark covering diverse query focuses. Experimental results show that TimelineAgent consistently outperforms existing methods, offering a practical framework for complex real-world timeline construction.
Qingkai Min, Yunxin Bao, Yifeng Lu +4
Zhejiang University · School of Engineering, Westlake University · Institute of Advanced Technology, Westlake Institute for Advanced Study +3