Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38405784›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2024

Evaluating Large Language Models in Extracting Cognitive Exam Dates and Scores.

Hao Zhang, Neil Jethani, Simon Jones, Nicholas Genes, Vincent J Major, Ian S Jaffe, Anthony B Cardillo, Noah Heilenbach, Nadia Fazal Ali, Luke J Bonanni and 22 more

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

32 authors.

Hao ZhangNYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Neil JethaniNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-1364-7984
Simon JonesNYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Nicholas GenesNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-9836-2477
Vincent J MajorNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0003-2604-3458
Ian S JaffeNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-7309-308X
Anthony B CardilloNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0003-1594-2562
Noah HeilenbachNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-6796-6163
Nadia Fazal AliNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-6180-0173
Luke J BonanniNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-1730-0486
Andrew J ClayburnNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-8729-1805
Zain KheraNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-8833-6382
Erica C SadlerNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-7006-1659
Jaideep PrasadNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-8532-8336
Jamie SchlacterNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-5825-8109
Kevin LiuNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-4664-9695
Benjamin SilvaNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-6112-3387
Sophie MontgomeryNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0003-2606-2042
Eric J KimNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-8032-2090
Jacob LesterNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-9079-2790
Theodore M HillNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-0604-6451
Alba AvoricaniNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-7569-5025
Ethan ChervonskiNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-4404-0499
James DavydovNYU Grossman School of Medicine.
William SmallNYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Eesha ChakravarttyNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-6306-8246
Himanshu GroverNYU Grossman School of Medicine.
John A DodsonNYU Grossman School of Medicine.
Abraham A BrodyNYU Rory Meyers College of Nursing, NYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-3405-7043
Yindalon AphinyanaphongsNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0001-8605-5392
Arjun MasurkarNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-2498-2059
Narges RazavianNYU Grossman School of Medicine.ORCID 0000-0002-9922-6370

Funding

Research Education ComponentP30AG066512 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Mary Sherman Mittelman · 2020 to 2026
$28.4M
Leveraging Electronic Health Records for Reducing Dementia Screening Disparities in Diverse CommunitiesR01AG079175 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Abraham Aizer Brody, John A Dodson · 2023 to 2026
$3.3M
SCH: Generalizable Dementia Early Detection via Multimodal Self-Supervised LearningR01AG085617 · NIA · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI Arjun Vijay Masurkar, Narges Razavian · 2023 to 2026
$1.1M
NIA NIH HHS P30 AG066512NIA NIH HHS R01 AG079175NIA NIH HHS R01 AG085617
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Large language models (LLMs) are crucial for medical tasks. Ensuring their reliability is vital to avoid false results. Our study assesses two state-of-the-art LLMs (ChatGPT and LlaMA-2) for extracting clinical information, focusing on cognitive tests like MMSE and CDR. Objective: Evaluate ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 performance in extracting MMSE and CDR scores, including their associated dates. Methods: Our data consisted of 135,307 clinical notes (Jan 12th, 2010 to May 24th, 2023) mentioning MMSE, CDR, or MoCA. After applying inclusion criteria 34,465 notes remained, of which 765 underwent ChatGPT (GPT-4) and LlaMA-2, and 22 experts reviewed the responses. ChatGPT successfully extracted MMSE and CDR instances with dates from 742 notes. We used 20 notes for fine-tuning and training the reviewers. The remaining 722 were assigned to reviewers, with 309 each assigned to two reviewers simultaneously. Inter-rater-agreement (Fleiss' Kappa), precision, recall, true/false negative rates, and accuracy were calculated. Our study follows TRIPOD reporting guidelines for model validation. Results: For MMSE information extraction, ChatGPT (vs. LlaMA-2) achieved accuracy of 83% (vs. 66.4%), sensitivity of 89.7% (vs. 69.9%), true-negative rates of 96% (vs 60.0%), and precision of 82.7% (vs 62.2%). For CDR the results were lower overall, with accuracy of 87.1% (vs. 74.5%), sensitivity of 84.3% (vs. 39.7%), true-negative rates of 99.8% (98.4%), and precision of 48.3% (vs. 16.1%). We qualitatively evaluated the MMSE errors of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 on double-reviewed notes. LlaMA-2 errors included 27 cases of total hallucination, 19 cases of reporting other scores instead of MMSE, 25 missed scores, and 23 cases of reporting only the wrong date. In comparison, ChatGPT's errors included only 3 cases of total hallucination, 17 cases of wrong test reported instead of MMSE, and 19 cases of reporting a wrong date. Conclusions: In this diagnostic/prognostic study of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 for extracting cognitive exam dates and scores from clinical notes, ChatGPT exhibited high accuracy, with better performance compared to LlaMA-2. The use of LLMs could benefit dementia research and clinical care, by identifying eligible patients for treatments initialization or clinical trial enrollments. Rigorous evaluation of LLMs is crucial to understanding their capabilities and limitations.

Identifiers

PMID38405784
PMCPMC10888985

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.