MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392736665 · doi:10.1093/jamia/ocae312

A dataset and benchmark for hospital course summarization with adapted large language models

2024· article· en· W4392736665 on OpenAlexaff
Asad Aali, Dave Van Veen, Yamin Arefeen, Jason Hom, Christian Blüthgen, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Sergios Gatidis, N. Clifford, Joseph Daws, Arash Saber Tehrani, Jangwon Kim, Akshay Chaudhari

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Medical Informatics Association · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersStanford Cardiovascular Institute, School of Medicine, Stanford UniversityNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin DiseasesStanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence, Stanford UniversityNational Institute of Nursing ResearchNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Automatic summarizationBenchmark (surveying)Artificial intelligenceBenchmarkingHealth careMachine learningNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Brief hospital course (BHC) summaries are clinical documents that summarize a patient's hospital stay. While large language models (LLMs) depict remarkable capabilities in automating real-world tasks, their capabilities for healthcare applications such as synthesizing BHCs from clinical notes have not been shown. We introduce a novel preprocessed dataset, the MIMIC-IV-BHC, encapsulating clinical note and BHC pairs to adapt LLMs for BHC synthesis. Furthermore, we introduce a benchmark of the summarization performance of 2 general-purpose LLMs and 3 healthcare-adapted LLMs. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using clinical notes as input, we apply prompting-based (using in-context learning) and fine-tuning-based adaptation strategies to 3 open-source LLMs (Clinical-T5-Large, Llama2-13B, and FLAN-UL2) and 2 proprietary LLMs (Generative Pre-trained Transformer [GPT]-3.5 and GPT-4). We evaluate these LLMs across multiple context-length inputs using natural language similarity metrics. We further conduct a clinical study with 5 clinicians, comparing clinician-written and LLM-generated BHCs across 30 samples, focusing on their potential to enhance clinical decision-making through improved summary quality. We compare reader preferences for the original and LLM-generated summary using Wilcoxon signed-rank tests. We further request optional qualitative feedback from clinicians to gain deeper insights into their preferences, and we present the frequency of common themes arising from these comments. RESULTS: The Llama2-13B fine-tuned LLM outperforms other domain-adapted models given quantitative evaluation metrics of Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-Score. GPT-4 with in-context learning shows more robustness to increasing context lengths of clinical note inputs than fine-tuned Llama2-13B. Despite comparable quantitative metrics, the reader study depicts a significant preference for summaries generated by GPT-4 with in-context learning compared to both Llama2-13B fine-tuned summaries and the original summaries (P<.001), highlighting the need for qualitative clinical evaluation. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We release a foundational clinically relevant dataset, the MIMIC-IV-BHC, and present an open-source benchmark of LLM performance in BHC synthesis from clinical notes. We observe high-quality summarization performance for both in-context proprietary and fine-tuned open-source LLMs using both quantitative metrics and a qualitative clinical reader study. Our research effectively integrates elements from the data assimilation pipeline: our methods use (1) clinical data sources to integrate, (2) data translation, and (3) knowledge creation, while our evaluation strategy paves the way for (4) deployment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.005
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Medical Informatics AssociationSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207