William Collins

Justin Xu, Zhihong Chen, Andrew Johnston et al. · oxford, stanford

Recent developments in natural language generation have tremendous implications for healthcare. For instance, state-of-the-art systems could automate the generation of sections in clinical reports to alleviate physician workload and streamline hospital documentation. To explore these applications, we present a shared task consisting of two subtasks: (1) Radiology Report Generation (RRG24) and (2) Discharge Summary Generation ("Discharge Me!"). RRG24 involves generating the 'Findings' and 'Impression' sections of radiology reports given chest X-rays. "Discharge Me!" involves generating the 'Brief Hospital Course' and 'Discharge Instructions' sections of discharge summaries for patients admitted through the emergency department. "Discharge Me!" submissions were subsequently reviewed by a team of clinicians. Both tasks emphasize the goal of reducing clinician burnout and repetitive workloads by generating documentation. We received 201 submissions from across 8 teams for RRG24, and 211 submissions from across 16 teams for "Discharge Me!".

Dave Van Veen, Cara Van Uden, Louis Blankemeier et al.

Analyzing vast textual data and summarizing key information from electronic health records imposes a substantial burden on how clinicians allocate their time. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in natural language processing (NLP), their effectiveness on a diverse range of clinical summarization tasks remains unproven. In this study, we apply adaptation methods to eight LLMs, spanning four distinct clinical summarization tasks: radiology reports, patient questions, progress notes, and doctor-patient dialogue. Quantitative assessments with syntactic, semantic, and conceptual NLP metrics reveal trade-offs between models and adaptation methods. A clinical reader study with ten physicians evaluates summary completeness, correctness, and conciseness; in a majority of cases, summaries from our best adapted LLMs are either equivalent (45%) or superior (36%) compared to summaries from medical experts. The ensuing safety analysis highlights challenges faced by both LLMs and medical experts, as we connect errors to potential medical harm and categorize types of fabricated information. Our research provides evidence of LLMs outperforming medical experts in clinical text summarization across multiple tasks. This suggests that integrating LLMs into clinical workflows could alleviate documentation burden, allowing clinicians to focus more on patient care.