A medically grounded LLM agent–based tool to detect patient safety events in medical records
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Large language models (LLMs) have shown incredible promise in medicine. While LLMs may be particularly useful in areas requiring extensive review of clinical records, their use remains limited due to their tendency to hallucinate and fabricate information. Hallucination issues, as well as their consequences, are exacerbated in low–probability, high–stakes scenarios such as rare adverse safety events or medical errors. We present SAFE–AI (Structured and Automated Framework for Explainable AI), a novel method for clinical decision making that combines the strengths of clinical expert knowledge with LLMs in an ontology–driven model that minimizes hallucinations using strict rules. We test this method to identify medication errors in medical charts. We collected a sample of 18,402 lines of clinical information from 300 EMS clinical charts that were independently dually reviewed by two expert physicians for epinephrine adverse safety events (ASEs), with 96% inter-rater agreement. We tested SAFE–AI against these labels, achieving human–like performance in detecting epinephrine overdoses with 97.9% accuracy, and 91.6% accuracy in identifying delays in epinephrine administration, greatly outperforming baseline LLMs models. Notably, some disagreements between clinicians and the model were found to be justifiable differences in judgment rather than errors. SAFE-AI presents a novel approach for clinical AI applications that addresses two key limitations of current machine learning methods: 1) over-reliance on probabilistic pattern recognition instead of established medical knowledge, and 2) perpetuation of biases present in training data. This framework is easily adaptable to a range of clinical applications, paving the way for provable and trustworthy AI in medicine. Author Summary LLMs have shown promise in analyzing clinical records but their use is limited due to their tendency to hallucinate and fabricate information. Misinformation could threaten patient safety and jeopardize trust. We developed SAFE–AI (Structured and Automated Framework for Explainable AI), which combines knowledge from clinical experts with LLM inference to detect adverse safety events (ASEs) with minimal errors. We tested our method in identifying medication errors in medical charts and compared results to reviews by expert physicians. Our method detected epinephrine delays and overdoses with a high level of accuracy. SAFE-AI presents a novel approach for clinical AI applications that overcomes reliance on pattern recognition instead of medical knowledge biases present in training data.
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 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».