N. Kotecha
Publications
Development, Evaluation, and Deployment of a Multi-Agent System for Thoracic Tumor Board
Tumor boards are multidisciplinary conferences dedicated to producing actionable patient care recommendations with live review of primary radiology and pathology data. Succinct patient case summaries are needed to drive efficient and accurate case discussions. We developed a manual AI-based workflow to generate patient summaries to display live at the Stanford Thoracic Tumor board. To improve on this manually intensive process, we developed several automated AI chart summarization methods and evaluated them against physician gold standard summaries and fact-based scoring rubrics. We report these comparative evaluations as well as our deployment of the final state automated AI chart summarization tool along with post-deployment monitoring. We also validate the use of an LLM as a judge evaluation strategy for fact-based scoring. This work is an example of integrating AI-based workflows into routine clinical practice.
Adoption and Use of LLMs at an Academic Medical Center
While large language models (LLMs) can support clinical documentation needs, standalone tools struggle with "workflow friction" from manual data entry. We developed ChatEHR, a system that enables the use of LLMs with the entire patient timeline spanning several years. ChatEHR enables automations - which are static combinations of prompts and data that perform a fixed task - and interactive use in the electronic health record (EHR) via a user interface (UI). The resulting ability to sift through patient medical records for diverse use-cases such as pre-visit chart review, screening for transfer eligibility, monitoring for surgical site infections, and chart abstraction, redefines LLM use as an institutional capability. This system, accessible after user-training, enables continuous monitoring and evaluation of LLM use. In 1.5 years, we built 7 automations and 1075 users have trained to become routine users of the UI, engaging in 23,000 sessions in the first 3 months of launch. For automations, being model-agnostic and accessing multiple types of data was essential for matching specific clinical or administrative tasks with the most appropriate LLM. Benchmark-based evaluations proved insufficient for monitoring and evaluation of the UI, requiring new methods to monitor performance. Generation of summaries was the most frequent task in the UI, with an estimated 0.73 hallucinations and 1.60 inaccuracies per generation. The resulting mix of cost savings, time savings, and revenue growth required a value assessment framework to prioritize work as well as quantify the impact of using LLMs. Initial estimates are $6M savings in the first year of use, without quantifying the benefit of the better care offered. Such a "build-from-within" strategy provides an opportunity for health systems to maintain agency via a vendor-agnostic, internally governed LLM platform.
Evaluation of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for supporting real-world information needs in healthcare delivery
Despite growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, current explorations do not assess the real-world utility and safety of LLMs in clinical settings. Our objective was to determine whether two LLMs can serve information needs submitted by physicians as questions to an informatics consultation service in a safe and concordant manner. Sixty six questions from an informatics consult service were submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 via simple prompts. 12 physicians assessed the LLM responses' possibility of patient harm and concordance with existing reports from an informatics consultation service. Physician assessments were summarized based on majority vote. For no questions did a majority of physicians deem either LLM response as harmful. For GPT-3.5, responses to 8 questions were concordant with the informatics consult report, 20 discordant, and 9 were unable to be assessed. There were 29 responses with no majority on "Agree", "Disagree", and "Unable to assess". For GPT-4, responses to 13 questions were concordant, 15 discordant, and 3 were unable to be assessed. There were 35 responses with no majority. Responses from both LLMs were largely devoid of overt harm, but less than 20% of the responses agreed with an answer from an informatics consultation service, responses contained hallucinated references, and physicians were divided on what constitutes harm. These results suggest that while general purpose LLMs are able to provide safe and credible responses, they often do not meet the specific information need of a given question. A definitive evaluation of the usefulness of LLMs in healthcare settings will likely require additional research on prompt engineering, calibration, and custom-tailoring of general purpose models.