Unknown is not normal: separating language-model extraction from rule-based decision logic for clinical risk scores

Counts differ because each database indexes a different set of publications. We treat OpenAlex as the canonical count; Google Scholar is not shown (no API, and crawling it violates its ToS).

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to compute clinical risk scores from free-text notes. Notes are often incomplete, and treating undocumented findings as normal can silently misclassify patients. We test whether separating three-state extraction (present, absent or unknown, by an LLM) from decision logic (deterministic code computing score bounds over unknown inputs) lets a system ask only questions that can change the decision. On 1,200 synthetic emergency cases across six calculators (HEART, CURB-65, qSOFA, PERC, Wells, Cockcroft-Gault), with a simulated clinician answering questions, we compared this bounds policy with asking for every missing input, a missing-equals-normal schema, and an end-to-end LLM agent (Claude Opus 5.5). With Claude Haiku 4.5 as extractor, the bounds policy matched ask-all accuracy (99.4% vs 99.4%) with half the questions (0.92 vs 1.78 per case) and no irrelevant ones. Treating missing as normal dropped accuracy to 91.2% and under-triaged 8.5% of patients (95% CI 7.1-10.2), and under-triage persisted under messy notes and a noisy clinician. The agent was equally accurate under ideal conditions (99.6%) but 9.5% of its questions were irrelevant; with a noisy clinician it was less accurate than the bounds policy (83.5% vs 87.0%, p<0.001) and committed prematurely in 2.7% of cases (bounds: 0%). A 9B local model as extractor reached oracle-level accuracy (99.8%). In 584 real case reports from MedCalc-Bench, only 52% contained enough information to determine the category (HEART 13%). Routing decisions through code that reasons explicitly about unknowns avoids premature commitment and irrelevant questions, halves the questions asked, and works with small local models.