A Multi-agent Large Language Model Framework to Automatically Assess Performance of a Clinical AI Triage Tool
This addresses the need for more consistent evaluation methods in clinical AI tools, particularly for triage applications, though it is incremental as it builds on existing LLM and ensemble techniques.
This study tackled the problem of reliably assessing a clinical AI triage tool for intracranial hemorrhage detection by using an ensemble of multiple LLM agents instead of a single LLM, finding that ensembles like llama3.3:70b and GPT-4o achieved AUCs up to 0.78 and MCC scores up to 0.571, with no significant differences between top ensembles.
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine if an ensemble of multiple LLM agents could be used collectively to provide a more reliable assessment of a pixel-based AI triage tool than a single LLM. Methods: 29,766 non-contrast CT head exams from fourteen hospitals were processed by a commercial intracranial hemorrhage (ICH) AI detection tool. Radiology reports were analyzed by an ensemble of eight open-source LLM models and a HIPAA compliant internal version of GPT-4o using a single multi-shot prompt that assessed for presence of ICH. 1,726 examples were manually reviewed. Performance characteristics of the eight open-source models and consensus were compared to GPT-4o. Three ideal consensus LLM ensembles were tested for rating the performance of the triage tool. Results: The cohort consisted of 29,766 head CTs exam-report pairs. The highest AUC performance was achieved with llama3.3:70b and GPT-4o (AUC= 0.78). The average precision was highest for Llama3.3:70b and GPT-4o (AP=0.75 & 0.76). Llama3.3:70b had the highest F1 score (0.81) and recall (0.85), greater precision (0.78), specificity (0.72), and MCC (0.57). Using MCC (95% CI) the ideal combination of LLMs were: Full-9 Ensemble 0.571 (0.552-0.591), Top-3 Ensemble 0.558 (0.537-0.579), Consensus 0.556 (0.539-0.574), and GPT4o 0.522 (0.500-0.543). No statistically significant differences were observed between Top-3, Full-9, and Consensus (p > 0.05). Conclusion: An ensemble of medium to large sized open-source LLMs provides a more consistent and reliable method to derive a ground truth retrospective evaluation of a clinical AI triage tool over a single LLM alone.