This study introduces SHARE (Synergistic Human-Agent REasoning system), a framework for human-AI co-learning designed to produce scalable, accurate, and reproducible phenotype labels from electronic health records (EHRs). The objective was to evaluate whether SHARE could support standardized chart review and real-world evidence (RWE) generation for complex outcomes, using rheumatoid arthritis disease activity as the demonstration use case.
The authors emphasize SHARE’s aim to integrate automated evidence extraction and reasoning with human adjudication to improve gold-standard label quality, flag ambiguous cases for review, and enable labeling at a scale infeasible for manual-only approaches.
The evaluation used a multi-institutional EHR-based cohort of 3,167 patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Expert human reviewers and the SHARE agent applied the same predefined review guideline to clinical notes.
Initially, expert reviewers labeled 626 notes from 273 patients. Following human–AI adjudication, 127 of those initial labels (20%) were revised and 60 additional notes were added, producing a final co-produced reference set of 686 notes. The co-produced labels served as the reference standard for measuring agent performance and for informing subsequent agent refinement.
Ethical oversight was obtained: the Mass General Brigham Institutional Review Board approved the work (protocol 2025P000263) and waived informed consent.
SHARE’s agent comprises three primary components:
Embedding-based informative-note filtering to identify notes likely to contain relevant evidence.
Structured evidence extraction to pull discrete findings and measurements from notes at scale.
Evidence-based integrated reasoning to assign disease activity categories and provide supporting evidence, a rationale for the assigned label, a confidence score, and an ambiguity flag when the evidence is unclear.
This modular architecture was designed to make phenotyping transparent and to generate traceable outputs that both humans and machines can inspect during adjudication.
Notes were processed by the agent and labeled with activity categories alongside supporting evidence and an ambiguity indicator. Reviewers adjudicated note-level discrepancies between their labels and the agent’s outputs. Adjudication produced final co-produced labels used for two purposes: 1) to evaluate agent performance and 2) to refine labels and inform iterative agent development.
The co-learning loop—where human adjudication updates the reference and guides agent refinement—was central to SHARE’s approach for improving label accuracy and for identifying notes that warranted further human review due to ambiguity.
The primary outcome was the mean absolute error (MAE) of the agent’s labels versus the final co-produced labels. Before co-learning, the agent’s MAE was 0.406; after co-learning it improved to 0.291, demonstrating measurable improvement in agreement with the adjudicated reference.
The agent’s ambiguity flag corresponded closely with expert designation of ambiguous notes, achieving 92.1% agreement. This indicates that the agent could reliably identify notes that required human attention.
Applied at scale across the cohort, the agent labeled 101,691 notes. Human–AI adjudication of a subset (the 686-note co-produced reference) revealed that 20% of initial human labels were revised during adjudication, illustrating the impact of the co-learning process on gold-standard quality.
To support scalable deployment, the authors evaluated a budget-tiered configuration. In this setup, GPT-5 Nano was used for high-volume evidence extraction and o4-mini handled final reasoning. This configuration was benchmarked against a higher-cost, high-reasoning-effort configuration that used GPT-5.4 at every step.
Across the full cohort labeling, the budget-tiered configuration matched GPT-5.4’s accuracy while reducing estimated cost by 69% and compute time by 70%. These resource savings suggest practical pathways to deploy SHARE for large EHR datasets while maintaining performance.
SHARE improved overall gold-standard label quality through its co-learning process, identified ambiguous cases for targeted human review, and enabled standardized chart reviews at a scale not feasible with manual review alone. The framework’s emphasis on explainable outputs—evidence, rationale, confidence, and ambiguity—supports reproducibility and transparency in EHR phenotyping.
Limitations and context reported in the source: this work is presented as a clinical preprint and has not undergone peer review. The article discloses competing interests and funding sources. Specific implementation details, such as exact prompt engineering, model hyperparameters, or per-note monetary cost calculations, were not detailed in the abstract and would need to be consulted in the full preprint for replication.
Overall, SHARE provides a transferable, resource-efficient approach to incorporate complex phenotypes into RWE studies by combining automated evidence extraction and reasoning with targeted human adjudication to refine labels and guide iterative agent improvement.