Christopher J. Lindsell

Betina Idnay, Zihan Xu, William G. Adams et al.

This study reports a comprehensive environmental scan of the generative AI (GenAI) infrastructure in the national network for clinical and translational science across 36 institutions supported by the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Program led by the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) at the United States. With the rapid advancement of GenAI technologies, including large language models (LLMs), healthcare institutions face unprecedented opportunities and challenges. This research explores the current status of GenAI integration, focusing on stakeholder roles, governance structures, and ethical considerations by administering a survey among leaders of health institutions (i.e., representing academic medical centers and health systems) to assess the institutional readiness and approach towards GenAI adoption. Key findings indicate a diverse range of institutional strategies, with most organizations in the experimental phase of GenAI deployment. The study highlights significant variations in governance models, with a strong preference for centralized decision-making but notable gaps in workforce training and ethical oversight. Moreover, the results underscore the need for a more coordinated approach to GenAI governance, emphasizing collaboration among senior leaders, clinicians, information technology staff, and researchers. Our analysis also reveals concerns regarding GenAI bias, data security, and stakeholder trust, which must be addressed to ensure the ethical and effective implementation of GenAI technologies. This study offers valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities of GenAI integration in healthcare, providing a roadmap for institutions aiming to leverage GenAI for improved quality of care and operational efficiency.

Rui Yang, Jiayi Tong, Haoyuan Wang et al.

Background. Systematic reviews in comparative effectiveness research require timely evidence synthesis. Preprints accelerate knowledge dissemination but vary in quality, posing challenges for systematic reviews. Methods. We propose AutoConfidence (automated confidence assessment), an advanced framework for predicting preprint publication, which reduces reliance on manual curation and expands the range of predictors, including three key advancements: (1) automated data extraction using natural language processing techniques, (2) semantic embeddings of titles and abstracts, and (3) large language model (LLM)-driven evaluation scores. Additionally, we employed two prediction models: a random forest classifier for binary outcome and a survival cure model that predicts both binary outcome and publication risk over time. Results. The random forest classifier achieved AUROC 0.692 with LLM-driven scores, improving to 0.733 with semantic embeddings and 0.747 with article usage metrics. The survival cure model reached AUROC 0.716 with LLM-driven scores, improving to 0.731 with semantic embeddings. For publication risk prediction, it achieved a concordance index of 0.658, increasing to 0.667 with semantic embeddings. Conclusion. Our study advances the framework for preprint publication prediction through automated data extraction and multiple feature integration. By combining semantic embeddings with LLM-driven evaluations, AutoConfidence enhances predictive performance while reducing manual annotation burden. The framework has the potential to facilitate incorporation of preprint articles during the appraisal phase of systematic reviews, supporting researchers in more effective utilization of preprint resources.

Mahmoud Alwakeel, Emory Buck, Jonathan G. Martin et al.

Pulmonary embolism (PE) registries accelerate practice-improving research but depend on resource-intensive manual abstraction of radiology reports. We evaluated whether openly available large-language models (LLMs) can automate concept extraction from computed-tomography PE (CTPE) reports without sacrificing data quality. Four Llama-3 (L3) variants (3.0 8 B, 3.1 8 B, 3.1 70 B, 3.3 70 B) and two reviewer models Phi-4 (P4) 14 B and Gemma-3 27 B (G3) were tested on 250 dual-annotated CTPE reports each from MIMIC-IV and Duke University. Outcomes were accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV) versus a human gold standard across model sizes, temperature settings, and shot counts. Mean accuracy across all concepts increased with scale: 0.83 (L3-0 8 B), 0.91 (L3-1 8 B), and 0.96 for both 70 B variants; P4 14 B achieved 0.98; G3 matched. Accuracy differed by < 0.03 between datasets, underscoring external robustness. In dual-model concordance analysis (L3 70 B + P4 14 B), PE-presence PPV was >= 0.95 and NPV >= 0.98, while location, thrombus burden, right-heart strain, and image-quality artifacts each maintained PPV >= 0.90 and NPV >= 0.95. Fewer than 4% of individual concept annotations were discordant, and complete agreement was observed in more than 75% of reports. G3 performed comparably. LLMs therefore offer a scalable, accurate solution for PE registry abstraction, and a dual-model review workflow can further safeguard data quality with minimal human oversight.