Utilizing large language models for detecting hospital-acquired conditions: an empirical study on pulmonary embolism
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: Adverse event detection from Electronic Medical Records (EMRs) is challenging due to the low incidence of the event, variability in clinical documentation, and the complexity of data formats. Pulmonary embolism as an adverse event (PEAE) is particularly difficult to identify using existing approaches. This study aims to develop and evaluate a Large Language Model (LLM)-based framework for detecting PEAE from unstructured narrative data in EMRs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a chart review of adult patients (aged 18-100) admitted to tertiary-care hospitals in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, between 2017-2022. We developed an LLM-based detection framework consisting of three modules: evidence extraction (implementing both keyword-based and semantic similarity-based filtering methods), discharge information extraction (focusing on six key clinical sections), and PEAE detection. Four open-source LLMs (Llama3, Mistral-7B, Gemma, and Phi-3) were evaluated using positive predictive value, sensitivity, specificity, and F1-score. Model performance for population-level surveillance was assessed at yearly, quarterly, and monthly granularities. RESULTS: The chart review included 10 066 patients, with 40 cases of PEAE identified (0.4% prevalence). All four LLMs demonstrated high sensitivity (87.5-100%) and specificity (94.9-98.9%) across different experimental conditions. Gemma achieved the highest F1-score (28.11%) using keyword-based retrieval with discharge summary inclusion, along with 98.4% specificity, 87.5% sensitivity, and 99.95% negative predictive value. Keyword-based filtering reduced the median chunks per patient from 789 to 310, while semantic filtering further reduced this to 9 chunks. Including discharge summaries improved performance metrics across most models. For population-level surveillance, all models showed strong correlation with actual PEAE trends at yearly granularity (r=0.92-0.99), with Llama3 achieving the highest correlation (0.988). DISCUSSION: The results of our method for PEAE detection using EMR notes demonstrate high sensitivity and specificity across all four tested LLMs, indicating strong performance in distinguishing PEAE from non-PEAE cases. However, the low incidence rate of PEAE contributed to a lower PPV. The keyword-based chunking approach consistently outperformed semantic similarity-based methods, achieving higher F1 scores and PPV, underscoring the importance of domain knowledge in text segmentation. Including discharge summaries further enhanced performance metrics. Our population-based analysis revealed better performance for yearly trends compared to monthly granularity, suggesting the framework's utility for long-term surveillance despite dataset imbalance. Error analysis identified contextual misinterpretation, terminology confusion, and preprocessing limitations as key challenges for future improvement. CONCLUSIONS: Our proposed method demonstrates that LLMs can effectively detect PEAE from narrative EMRs with high sensitivity and specificity. While these models serve as effective screening tools to exclude non-PEAE cases, their lower PPV indicates they cannot be relied upon solely for definitive PEAE identification. Further chart review remains necessary for confirmation. Future work should focus on improving contextual understanding, medical terminology interpretation, and exploring advanced prompting techniques to enhance precision in adverse event detection from EMRs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».