Abstract
Electronic health records are written to support care, not retrieval. Across years of oncology notes, the primary diagnosis is restated in report after report, while the events that shape a patient's course, such as a recurrence or a change in therapy, may be recorded only once. A retriever that ranks passages by similarity to the query keeps returning the repeated material and can miss these transitions, that is, it exhibits temporal redundancy across historical narratives. We argue that longitudinal clinical retrieval should be treated as allocating a limited evidence budget across time, not just ranking by relevance. We separate the task into three objectives: temporal evidence allocation, candidate reconstruction, and clinical validation. In Study A (13 clinical queries over 20 patient records, with two-stage reconstruction), the Temporal-15 configuration reaches a milestone slot recall of 0.538, compared with 0.388 for the Global-50 baseline. However, it also retrieves far more evidence (496 versus 50 indexed units per query), so the gain cannot be credited to allocation alone. When evidence is held fixed, removing prompted precedence rules raises schema-order reversals from 0.010 to 0.080. A five-patient, single-query pilot with fixed budgets finds that wider temporal coverage does not reliably yield more dated milestones. Together, these results suggest that how much a record says about a period is a poor guide to how useful that period is as evidence. Because no expert reference timelines are available, our measurements describe retrieval behavior rather than clinical accuracy. This position and technical report presents the retrieval analysis behind the Onco-CONSTRUE framework and sets out a research agenda for budget-constrained longitudinal clinical retrieval.
Abstract (translated)
URL
https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.27682
