Keith Morse

Scott L. Fleming, Alejandro Lozano, William J. Haberkorn et al. · stanford

The ability of large language models (LLMs) to follow natural language instructions with human-level fluency suggests many opportunities in healthcare to reduce administrative burden and improve quality of care. However, evaluating LLMs on realistic text generation tasks for healthcare remains challenging. Existing question answering datasets for electronic health record (EHR) data fail to capture the complexity of information needs and documentation burdens experienced by clinicians. To address these challenges, we introduce MedAlign, a benchmark dataset of 983 natural language instructions for EHR data. MedAlign is curated by 15 clinicians (7 specialities), includes clinician-written reference responses for 303 instructions, and provides 276 longitudinal EHRs for grounding instruction-response pairs. We used MedAlign to evaluate 6 general domain LLMs, having clinicians rank the accuracy and quality of each LLM response. We found high error rates, ranging from 35% (GPT-4) to 68% (MPT-7B-Instruct), and an 8.3% drop in accuracy moving from 32k to 2k context lengths for GPT-4. Finally, we report correlations between clinician rankings and automated natural language generation metrics as a way to rank LLMs without human review. We make MedAlign available under a research data use agreement to enable LLM evaluations on tasks aligned with clinician needs and preferences.

Lin Lawrence Guo, Jason Fries, Ethan Steinberg et al.

Foundation models hold promise for transforming AI in healthcare by providing modular components that are easily adaptable to downstream healthcare tasks, making AI development more scalable and cost-effective. Structured EHR foundation models, trained on coded medical records from millions of patients, demonstrated benefits including increased performance with fewer training labels, and improved robustness to distribution shifts. However, questions remain on the feasibility of sharing these models across different hospitals and their performance for local task adaptation. This multi-center study examined the adaptability of a recently released structured EHR foundation model ($FM_{SM}$), trained on longitudinal medical record data from 2.57M Stanford Medicine patients. Experiments were conducted using EHR data at The Hospital for Sick Children and MIMIC-IV. We assessed both adaptability via continued pretraining on local data, and task adaptability compared to baselines of training models from scratch at each site, including a local foundation model. We evaluated the performance of these models on 8 clinical prediction tasks. In both datasets, adapting the off-the-shelf $FM_{SM}$ matched the performance of GBM models locally trained on all data while providing a 13% improvement in settings with few task-specific training labels. With continued pretraining on local data, label efficiency substantially improved, such that $FM_{SM}$ required fewer than 1% of training examples to match the fully trained GBM's performance. Continued pretraining was also 60 to 90% more sample-efficient than training local foundation models from scratch. Our findings show that adapting shared EHR foundation models across hospitals provides improved prediction performance at less cost, underscoring the utility of base foundation models as modular components to streamline the development of healthcare AI.

Daniel Lopez-Martinez, Alex Yakubovich, Martin Seneviratne et al.

While it has been well known in the ML community that deep learning models suffer from instability, the consequences for healthcare deployments are under characterised. We study the stability of different model architectures trained on electronic health records, using a set of outpatient prediction tasks as a case study. We show that repeated training runs of the same deep learning model on the same training data can result in significantly different outcomes at a patient level even though global performance metrics remain stable. We propose two stability metrics for measuring the effect of randomness of model training, as well as mitigation strategies for improving model stability.

Alison Callahan, Duncan McElfresh, Juan M. Banda et al.

The impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) to guide patient care or operational processes is an interplay of the AI model's output, the decision-making protocol based on that output, and the capacity of the stakeholders involved to take the necessary subsequent action. Estimating the effects of this interplay before deployment, and studying it in real time afterwards, are essential to bridge the chasm between AI model development and achievable benefit. To accomplish this, the Data Science team at Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation (T&E) mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models (FURM) by conducting an ethical review to identify potential value mismatches, simulations to estimate usefulness, financial projections to assess sustainability, as well as analyses to determine IT feasibility, design a deployment strategy, and recommend a prospective monitoring and evaluation plan. We report on FURM assessments done to evaluate six AI guided solutions for potential adoption, spanning clinical and operational settings, each with the potential to impact from several dozen to tens of thousands of patients each year. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Of the six solutions we assessed, two have moved into a planning and implementation phase. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - as well as their underlying methods and open source tools, are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions.