Michael A. Pfeffer

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.

Michael Wornow, Yizhe Xu, Rahul Thapa et al. · stanford

The successes of foundation models such as ChatGPT and AlphaFold have spurred significant interest in building similar models for electronic medical records (EMRs) to improve patient care and hospital operations. However, recent hype has obscured critical gaps in our understanding of these models' capabilities. We review over 80 foundation models trained on non-imaging EMR data (i.e. clinical text and/or structured data) and create a taxonomy delineating their architectures, training data, and potential use cases. We find that most models are trained on small, narrowly-scoped clinical datasets (e.g. MIMIC-III) or broad, public biomedical corpora (e.g. PubMed) and are evaluated on tasks that do not provide meaningful insights on their usefulness to health systems. In light of these findings, we propose an improved evaluation framework for measuring the benefits of clinical foundation models that is more closely grounded to metrics that matter in healthcare.

Timothy Keyes, Alison Callahan, Abby S. Pandya et al.

Post-deployment monitoring of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health care is essential to ensure their safety, quality, and sustained benefit-and to support governance decisions about which systems to update, modify, or decommission. Motivated by these needs, we developed a framework for monitoring deployed AI systems grounded in the mandate to take specific actions when they fail to behave as intended. This framework, which is now actively used at Stanford Health Care, is organized around three complementary principles: system integrity, performance, and impact. System integrity monitoring focuses on maximizing system uptime, detecting runtime errors, and identifying when changes to the surrounding IT ecosystem have unintended effects. Performance monitoring focuses on maintaining accurate system behavior in the face of changing health care practices (and thus input data) over time. Impact monitoring assesses whether a deployed system continues to have value in the form of benefit to clinicians and patients. Drawing on examples of deployed AI systems at our academic medical center, we provide practical guidance for creating monitoring plans based on these principles that specify which metrics to measure, when those metrics should be reviewed, who is responsible for acting when metrics change, and what concrete follow-up actions should be taken-for both traditional and generative AI. We also discuss challenges to implementing this framework, including the effort and cost of monitoring for health systems with limited resources and the difficulty of incorporating data-driven monitoring practices into complex organizations where conflicting priorities and definitions of success often coexist. This framework offers a practical template and starting point for health systems seeking to ensure that AI deployments remain safe and effective over time.

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.

April S. Liang, Fatemeh Amrollahi, Yixing Jiang et al.

Repetitive laboratory testing unlikely to yield clinically useful information is a common practice that burdens patients and increases healthcare costs. Education and feedback interventions have limited success, while general test ordering restrictions and electronic alerts impede appropriate clinical care. We introduce and evaluate SmartAlert, a machine learning (ML)-driven clinical decision support (CDS) system integrated into the electronic health record that predicts stable laboratory results to reduce unnecessary repeat testing. This case study describes the implementation process, challenges, and lessons learned from deploying SmartAlert targeting complete blood count (CBC) utilization in a randomized controlled pilot across 9270 admissions in eight acute care units across two hospitals between August 15, 2024, and March 15, 2025. Results show significant decrease in number of CBC results within 52 hours of SmartAlert display (1.54 vs 1.82, p <0.01) without adverse effect on secondary safety outcomes, representing a 15% relative reduction in repetitive testing. Implementation lessons learned include interpretation of probabilistic model predictions in clinical contexts, stakeholder engagement to define acceptable model behavior, governance processes for deploying a complex model in a clinical environment, user interface design considerations, alignment with clinical operational priorities, and the value of qualitative feedback from end users. In conclusion, a machine learning-driven CDS system backed by a deliberate implementation and governance process can provide precision guidance on inpatient laboratory testing to safely reduce unnecessary repetitive testing.

Asad Aali, Muhammad Ahmed Mohsin, Vasiliki Bikia et al.

As language models (LMs) are increasingly adopted across domains, high-quality benchmarking frameworks that accurately estimate performance are essential for guiding deployment decisions. While frameworks such as Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) enable broad evaluation across tasks, they often rely on fixed prompts that fail to generalize across LMs, yielding unrepresentative performance estimates. Unless we approximate each LM's ceiling (maximum achievable via changes to the prompt), we risk underestimating performance. Declarative prompting frameworks, such as DSPy, offer a scalable alternative to manual prompt engineering by crafting structured prompts that can be optimized per task. However, such frameworks have not been systematically evaluated across established benchmarks. We present a reproducible DSPy+HELM framework that introduces structured prompting methods which elicit reasoning, enabling more accurate LM benchmarking. Using four prompting methods, we evaluate four frontier LMs across seven benchmarks (general/medical domain) against existing HELM baseline scores. We find that without structured prompting: (i) HELM underestimates LM performance (by 4% average), (ii) performance estimates vary more across benchmarks ($+$2% standard deviation), (iii) performance gaps are misrepresented (leaderboard rankings flip on 3/7 benchmarks), and (iv) introducing chain-of-thought reduces LM sensitivity to prompt design (smaller $Δ$ across prompts). To our knowledge, this is the first benchmarking study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework, demonstrating how scalable performance-ceiling approximation yields more robust, decision-useful benchmarks. We open-source (i) DSPy+HELM Integration (https://github.com/stanford-crfm/helm/pull/3893) and (ii) Prompt Optimization Pipeline (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/dspy-helm).

Jiyeong Kim, Stephen P. Ma, Michael L. Chen et al.

Patients with diabetes are at increased risk of comorbid depression or anxiety, complicating their management. This study evaluated the performance of large language models (LLMs) in detecting these symptoms from secure patient messages. We applied multiple approaches, including engineered prompts, systemic persona, temperature adjustments, and zero-shot and few-shot learning, to identify the best-performing model and enhance performance. Three out of five LLMs demonstrated excellent performance (over 90% of F-1 and accuracy), with Llama 3.1 405B achieving 93% in both F-1 and accuracy using a zero-shot approach. While LLMs showed promise in binary classification and handling complex metrics like Patient Health Questionnaire-4, inconsistencies in challenging cases warrant further real-life assessment. The findings highlight the potential of LLMs to assist in timely screening and referrals, providing valuable empirical knowledge for real-world triage systems that could improve mental health care for patients with chronic diseases.