Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39147878›Full record

ArticleIntensive care medicine experimental2024

A pilot feasibility study comparing large language models in extracting key information from ICU patient text records from an Irish population.

Emma Urquhart, John Ryan, Sean Hartigan, Ciprian Nita, Ciara Hanley, Peter Moran, John Bates, Rachel Jooste, Conor Judge, John G Laffey and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Intensive care medicine experimental, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Emma UrquhartSchool of Computer Science, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
John RyanDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Sean HartiganDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Ciprian NitaDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Ciara HanleyDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Peter MoranDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
John BatesDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Rachel JoosteDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Conor JudgeSchool of Medicine, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
John G LaffeyDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland.
Michael G MaddenSchool of Computer Science, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland.
Bairbre A McNicholasDepartment of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital Galway, Galway, H91 YR71, Ireland. bmcnicholas@universityofgalway.ie.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9524-4021

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundArtificial intelligence, through improved data management and automated summarisation, has the potential to enhance intensive care unit (ICU) care. Large language models (LLMs) can interrogate and summarise large volumes of medical notes to create succinct discharge summaries. In this study, we aim to investigate the potential of LLMs to accurately and concisely synthesise ICU discharge summaries.

methodsAnonymised clinical notes from ICU admissions were used to train and validate a prompting structure in three separate LLMs (ChatGPT, GPT-4 API and Llama 2) to generate concise clinical summaries. Summaries were adjudicated by staff intensivists on ability to identify and appropriately order a pre-defined list of important clinical events as well as readability, organisation, succinctness, and overall rank.

resultsIn the development phase, text from five ICU episodes was used to develop a series of prompts to best capture clinical summaries. In the testing phase, a summary produced by each LLM from an additional six ICU episodes was utilised for evaluation. Overall ability to identify a pre-defined list of important clinical events in the summary was 41.5 ± 15.2% for GPT-4 API, 19.2 ± 20.9% for ChatGPT and 16.5 ± 14.1% for Llama2 (p = 0.002). GPT-4 API followed by ChatGPT had the highest score to appropriately order a pre-defined list of important clinical events in the summary as well as readability, organisation, succinctness, and overall rank, whilst Llama2 scored lowest for all. GPT-4 API produced minor hallucinations, which were not present in the other models.

conclusionDifferences exist in large language model performance in readability, organisation, succinctness, and sequencing of clinical events compared to others. All encountered issues with narrative coherence and omitted key clinical data and only moderately captured all clinically meaningful data in the correct order. However, these technologies suggest future potential for creating succinct discharge summaries.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceIntensive care medicineLarge language modelsMedical summaries

Identifiers

PMID39147878
PMCPMC11327225

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.