Background Electronic health record (EHR) phenotyping underpins observational research, cohort discovery, and clinical trial screening. Large language models (LLMs) offer new capabilities for extracting phenotypes from unstructured text, but their performance depends on pipeline design choices-including prompting, text segmentation, and aggregation. No systematic framework has previously examined how these parameters shape accuracy and reproducibility. Methods We evaluated LLM-based phenotyping pipelines using 1,388 discharge summaries across 16 clinical phenotypes. A full factorial experiment with LLaMA-3B, 8B, and 70B systematically varied three pipeline components: prompting (zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought, extract-then-phenotype), chunking (none, naive, document-based), and aggregation (any-positive, two-vote, majority), yielding 24 configurations per model. To compare intrinsic model capabilities, biomedical domain-adapted, commercial frontier (LLaMA-405B, GPT-4o, Gemini Flash 2.0), and reasoning-optimized models (DeepSeek-R1) were evaluated under a fixed configuration. Performance was assessed using precision, recall, and macro-F1; secondary analyses examined prediction consistency (Shannon entropy), self-confidence calibration, and the development of a taxonomy of recurrent model errors. Results Factorial ANOVAs showed that chunking and aggregation were the dominant drivers of performance, whereas the prompting strategy contributed minimally. Configuration effects were stable across model sizes, with no significant Model x Parameter interactions. Phenotype difficulty varied substantially (macro-F1 = 0.40-0.90), yet the highest-performing configuration-whole-document inference without aggregation-was consistent across phenotypes, as confirmed by mixed-effects modeling. In cross-model comparisons, DeepSeek-R1 achieved the highest macro-F1 (0.89), while LLaMA-70B matched GPT-4o and LLaMA-405B at substantially lower cost. Prediction entropy was low overall and driven primarily by phenotype difficulty rather than prompting or temperature. Self-confidence calibration was only moderately informative: high-confidence predictions were more accurate, but larger models exhibited systematic overconfidence. Conclusions LLM performance in EHR phenotyping is governed primarily by input structure and model capacity, not prompt engineering. Simple, document-level inference yields robust performance across diverse phenotypes, providing practical design guidance for LLM-based cohort identification while underscoring the continued need for human oversight for challenging phenotypes.

The authors have declared no competing interest.

This work was supported by funding from the Fonds de recherche du Quebec - Sante (FRQS) and the Association des specialistes en medecins internistes du Quebec (ASMIQ).

I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.

Yes

The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:

This work uses the publicly available MIMIC-IV dataset available to any researcher upon completing CITI training on http://physionet.org/sign-dua/mimiciv/2.2/

I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.

Yes

I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).

Yes

I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.

Yes

The MIMIC-IV Phenotype Atlas (MIPA) dataset labels are openly available at https://github.com/open-health-data-lab/MIPA-datacard All code for pipeline processing, supervised model training, and LLM-based phenotyping is available at https://github.com/open-health-data-lab/MIPA Note that access to the underlying discharge summaries and clinical notes is conditional upon completing CITI training and obtaining authorized access to the MIMIC-IV v2.2 database through PhysioNet.