Akshay Swaminathan

Debadutta Dash, Rahul Thapa, Juan M. Banda et al.

Despite growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, current explorations do not assess the real-world utility and safety of LLMs in clinical settings. Our objective was to determine whether two LLMs can serve information needs submitted by physicians as questions to an informatics consultation service in a safe and concordant manner. Sixty six questions from an informatics consult service were submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 via simple prompts. 12 physicians assessed the LLM responses' possibility of patient harm and concordance with existing reports from an informatics consultation service. Physician assessments were summarized based on majority vote. For no questions did a majority of physicians deem either LLM response as harmful. For GPT-3.5, responses to 8 questions were concordant with the informatics consult report, 20 discordant, and 9 were unable to be assessed. There were 29 responses with no majority on "Agree", "Disagree", and "Unable to assess". For GPT-4, responses to 13 questions were concordant, 15 discordant, and 3 were unable to be assessed. There were 35 responses with no majority. Responses from both LLMs were largely devoid of overt harm, but less than 20% of the responses agreed with an answer from an informatics consultation service, responses contained hallucinated references, and physicians were divided on what constitutes harm. These results suggest that while general purpose LLMs are able to provide safe and credible responses, they often do not meet the specific information need of a given question. A definitive evaluation of the usefulness of LLMs in healthcare settings will likely require additional research on prompt engineering, calibration, and custom-tailoring of general purpose models.

Nigam H. Shah, Nerissa Ambers, Abby Pandya et al.

While large language models (LLMs) can support clinical documentation needs, standalone tools struggle with "workflow friction" from manual data entry. We developed ChatEHR, a system that enables the use of LLMs with the entire patient timeline spanning several years. ChatEHR enables automations - which are static combinations of prompts and data that perform a fixed task - and interactive use in the electronic health record (EHR) via a user interface (UI). The resulting ability to sift through patient medical records for diverse use-cases such as pre-visit chart review, screening for transfer eligibility, monitoring for surgical site infections, and chart abstraction, redefines LLM use as an institutional capability. This system, accessible after user-training, enables continuous monitoring and evaluation of LLM use. In 1.5 years, we built 7 automations and 1075 users have trained to become routine users of the UI, engaging in 23,000 sessions in the first 3 months of launch. For automations, being model-agnostic and accessing multiple types of data was essential for matching specific clinical or administrative tasks with the most appropriate LLM. Benchmark-based evaluations proved insufficient for monitoring and evaluation of the UI, requiring new methods to monitor performance. Generation of summaries was the most frequent task in the UI, with an estimated 0.73 hallucinations and 1.60 inaccuracies per generation. The resulting mix of cost savings, time savings, and revenue growth required a value assessment framework to prioritize work as well as quantify the impact of using LLMs. Initial estimates are $6M savings in the first year of use, without quantifying the benefit of the better care offered. Such a "build-from-within" strategy provides an opportunity for health systems to maintain agency via a vendor-agnostic, internally governed LLM platform.

Philip Chung, Akshay Swaminathan, Alex J. Goodell et al.

Methods to ensure factual accuracy of text generated by large language models (LLM) in clinical medicine are lacking. VeriFact is an artificial intelligence system that combines retrieval-augmented generation and LLM-as-a-Judge to verify whether LLM-generated text is factually supported by a patient's medical history based on their electronic health record (EHR). To evaluate this system, we introduce VeriFact-BHC, a new dataset that decomposes Brief Hospital Course narratives from discharge summaries into a set of simple statements with clinician annotations for whether each statement is supported by the patient's EHR clinical notes. Whereas highest agreement between clinicians was 88.5%, VeriFact achieves up to 92.7% agreement when compared to a denoised and adjudicated average human clinican ground truth, suggesting that VeriFact exceeds the average clinician's ability to fact-check text against a patient's medical record. VeriFact may accelerate the development of LLM-based EHR applications by removing current evaluation bottlenecks.

Karthik S. Vedula, Annika Gupta, Akshay Swaminathan et al.

Large language models (LLMs) excel at clinical information extraction but their computational demands limit practical deployment. Knowledge distillation--the process of transferring knowledge from larger to smaller models--offers a potential solution. We evaluate the performance of distilled BERT models, which are approximately 1,000 times smaller than modern LLMs, for clinical named entity recognition (NER) tasks. We leveraged state-of-the-art LLMs (Gemini and OpenAI models) and medical ontologies (RxNorm and SNOMED) as teacher labelers for medication, disease, and symptom extraction. We applied our approach to over 3,300 clinical notes spanning five publicly available datasets, comparing distilled BERT models against both their teacher labelers and BERT models fine-tuned on human labels. External validation was conducted using clinical notes from the MedAlign dataset. For disease extraction, F1 scores were 0.82 (teacher model), 0.89 (BioBERT trained on human labels), and 0.84 (BioBERT-distilled). For medication, F1 scores were 0.84 (teacher model), 0.91 (BioBERT-human), and 0.87 (BioBERT-distilled). For symptoms: F1 score of 0.73 (teacher model) and 0.68 (BioBERT-distilled). Distilled BERT models had faster inference (12x, 4x, 8x faster than GPT-4o, o1-mini, and Gemini Flash respectively) and lower costs (85x, 101x, 2x cheaper than GPT-4o, o1-mini, and Gemini Flash respectively). On the external validation dataset, the distilled BERT model achieved F1 scores of 0.883 (medication), 0.726 (disease), and 0.699 (symptom). Distilled BERT models were up to 101x cheaper and 12x faster than state-of-the-art LLMs while achieving similar performance on NER tasks. Distillation offers a computationally efficient and scalable alternative to large LLMs for clinical information extraction.

François Grolleau, Emily Alsentzer, Timothy Keyes et al.

Evaluating factual accuracy in Large Language Model (LLM)-generated clinical text is a critical barrier to adoption, as expert review is unscalable for the continuous quality assurance these systems require. We address this challenge with two complementary contributions. First, we introduce MedFactEval, a framework for scalable, fact-grounded evaluation where clinicians define high-salience key facts and an "LLM Jury"--a multi-LLM majority vote--assesses their inclusion in generated summaries. Second, we present MedAgentBrief, a model-agnostic, multi-step workflow designed to generate high-quality, factual discharge summaries. To validate our evaluation framework, we established a gold-standard reference using a seven-physician majority vote on clinician-defined key facts from inpatient cases. The MedFactEval LLM Jury achieved almost perfect agreement with this panel (Cohen's kappa=81%), a performance statistically non-inferior to that of a single human expert (kappa=67%, P < 0.001). Our work provides both a robust evaluation framework (MedFactEval) and a high-performing generation workflow (MedAgentBrief), offering a comprehensive approach to advance the responsible deployment of generative AI in clinical workflows.

Monica Munnangi, Akshay Swaminathan, Jason Alan Fries et al.

Verifying and attributing factual claims is essential for the safe and effective use of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare. A core component of factuality evaluation is fact decomposition, the process of breaking down complex clinical statements into fine-grained atomic facts for verification. Recent work has proposed fact decomposition, which uses LLMs to rewrite source text into concise sentences conveying a single piece of information, to facilitate fine-grained fact verification. However, clinical documentation poses unique challenges for fact decomposition due to dense terminology and diverse note types and remains understudied. To address this gap and explore these challenges, we present FactEHR, an NLI dataset consisting of document fact decompositions for 2,168 clinical notes spanning four types from three hospital systems, resulting in 987,266 entailment pairs. We assess the generated facts on different axes, from entailment evaluation of LLMs to a qualitative analysis. Our evaluation, including review by the clinicians, reveals substantial variability in LLM performance for fact decomposition. For example, Gemini-1.5-Flash consistently generates relevant and accurate facts, while Llama-3 8B produces fewer and less consistent outputs. The results underscore the need for better LLM capabilities to support factual verification in clinical text.

Poulomi Pal, Lixiao Zhu, Andrea Golden-Lasher et al.

For language-capable interactive robots to be effectively introduced into human society, they must be able to naturally and efficiently communicate about the objects, locations, and people found in human environments. An important aspect of natural language communication is the use of pronouns. Ac-cording to the linguistic theory of the Givenness Hierarchy(GH), humans use pronouns due to implicit assumptions about the cognitive statuses their referents have in the minds of their conversational partners. In previous work, Williams et al. presented the first computational implementation of the full GH for the purpose of robot language understanding, leveraging a set of rules informed by the GH literature. However, that approach was designed specifically for language understanding,oriented around GH-inspired memory structures used to assess what entities are candidate referents given a particular cognitive status. In contrast, language generation requires a model in which cognitive status can be assessed for a given entity. We present and compare two such models of cognitive status: a rule-based Finite State Machine model directly informed by the GH literature and a Cognitive Status Filter designed to more flexibly handle uncertainty. The models are demonstrated and evaluated using a silver-standard English subset of the OFAI Multimodal Task Description Corpus.