Megan E. Branda

Maria Lizarazo Jimenez, Ana Gabriela Claros, Kieran Green et al.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly demonstrating the potential to reach human-level performance in generating clinical summaries from patient-clinician conversations. However, these summaries often focus on patients' biology rather than their preferences, values, wishes, and concerns. To achieve patient-centered care, we propose a new standard for Artificial Intelligence (AI) clinical summarization tasks: Patient-Centered Summaries (PCS). Our objective was to develop a framework to generate PCS that capture patient values and ensure clinical utility and to assess whether current open-source LLMs can achieve human-level performance in this task. We used a mixed-methods process. Two Patient and Public Involvement groups (10 patients and 8 clinicians) in the United Kingdom participated in semi-structured interviews exploring what personal and contextual information should be included in clinical summaries and how it should be structured for clinical use. Findings informed annotation guidelines used by eight clinicians to create gold-standard PCS from 88 atrial fibrillation consultations. Sixteen consultations were used to refine a prompt aligned with the guidelines. Five open-source LLMs (Llama-3.2-3B, Llama-3.1-8B, Mistral-8B, Gemma-3-4B, and Qwen3-8B) generated summaries for 72 consultations using zero-shot and few-shot prompting, evaluated with ROUGE-L, BERTScore, and qualitative metrics. Patients emphasized lifestyle routines, social support, recent stressors, and care values. Clinicians sought concise functional, psychosocial, and emotional context. The best zero-shot performance was achieved by Mistral-8B (ROUGE-L 0.189) and Llama-3.1-8B (BERTScore 0.673); the best few-shot by Llama-3.1-8B (ROUGE-L 0.206, BERTScore 0.683). Completeness and fluency were similar between experts and models, while correctness and patient-centeredness favored human PCS.

Oscar J. Ponce-Ponte, David Toro-Tobon, Luis F. Figueroa et al.

Shared decision-making (SDM) is necessary to achieve patient-centred care. Currently no methodology exists to automatically measure SDM at scale. This study aimed to develop an automated approach to measure SDM by using language modelling and the conversational alignment (CA) score. A total of 157 video-recorded patient-doctor conversations from a randomized multi-centre trial evaluating SDM decision aids for anticoagulation in atrial fibrillations were transcribed and segmented into 42,559 sentences. Context-response pairs and negative sampling were employed to train deep learning (DL) models and fine-tuned BERT models via the next sentence prediction (NSP) task. Each top-performing model was used to calculate four types of CA scores. A random-effects analysis by clinician, adjusting for age, sex, race, and trial arm, assessed the association between CA scores and SDM outcomes: the Decisional Conflict Scale (DCS) and the Observing Patient Involvement in Decision-Making 12 (OPTION12) scores. p-values were corrected for multiple comparisons with the Benjamini-Hochberg method. Among 157 patients (34% female, mean age 70 SD 10.8), clinicians on average spoke more words than patients (1911 vs 773). The DL model without the stylebook strategy achieved a recall@1 of 0.227, while the fine-tuned BERTbase (110M) achieved the highest recall@1 with 0.640. The AbsMax (18.36 SE7.74 p=0.025) and Max CA (21.02 SE7.63 p=0.012) scores generated with the DL without stylebook were associated with OPTION12. The Max CA score generated with the fine-tuned BERTbase (110M) was associated with the DCS score (-27.61 SE12.63 p=0.037). BERT model sizes did not have an impact the association between CA scores and SDM. This study introduces an automated, scalable methodology to measure SDM in patient-doctor conversations through explainable CA scores, with potential to evaluate SDM strategies at scale.