Multisite Real-World Validation of an Electronic Health Record-Integrated Generative Artificial Intelligence Tool for Venous Thromboembolism Risk Stratification

Background: Guiding risk-appropriate inpatient thromboprophylaxis requires venous thromboembolism (VTE) risk stratification; however, reliable risk determination remains inconsistent in routine care. Health systems increasingly pilot artificial intelligence (AI) tools, yet few studies demonstrate rigorous evaluation in the context of a learning health system (LHS). We evaluated the performance of a pilot electronic health record (EHR)-integrated generative AI (GenAI) system, inHealth General Reasoner (iHGR), for VTE risk stratification versus clinician order set classifications and physician-adjudicated chart review. Methods: This multisite retrospective validation study included adult inpatient admissions at Johns Hopkins Medicine between June 21, 2025, and Dec 18, 2025 (checklist-based order set from June 21, 2025 - November 19, 2025, and clinician judgement-based order set from November 29 - December 18, 2025). From 758 eligible admissions, we randomly sampled 500 balanced by site and order set periods. iHGR and clinician-selected order set classifications were compared with the reference standard (RS). Primary outcomes were iHGR sensitivity and specificity. Secondary analyses compared the order sets with the same RS to evaluate workflow comparators and error patterns. Results: iHGR achieved 81.8% sensitivity (95% CI 77.3-85.6) and 70.9% specificity (63.6-77.3). The checklist-based order set had 61.3% sensitivity (53.7-68.5) and 86.2% specificity (77.4-91.9). The clinician judgement-based order set had 78.1% sensitivity (71.3-83.7) and 65.4% specificity (54.3-75.0). False-negative iHGR classifications were associated with missed narrative risk factors. Conclusion: iHGR showed higher sensitivity for VTE risk than checklist-based order sets and clinician judgement without introducing systematic bias. In silico evaluation of pilot AI systems within LHSs can identify clinically important performance trade-offs and implementation targets before operational scale-up. Narrative clinical data abstraction remained a key limitation, supporting the use of GenAI to support rather than supplant clinician judgement.