Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41297038›Full record

ArticleInteractive journal of medical research2025

Streamlining Ophthalmic Documentation With Anonymized, Fine-Tuned Language Models: Feasibility Study.

Sebastian Arens, Quang Vinh Ngo, Anna Richling, Lucas Stürzbecher, Daniel Böhringer, Thomas Reinhard, Felix Heilmeyer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Interactive journal of medical research, 2025. 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

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

7 authors.

Sebastian ArensEye Center, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-7431-647X
Quang Vinh NgoEye Center, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8462-2781
Anna RichlingEye Center, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-4905-0040
Lucas StürzbecherEye Center, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-6164-9060
Daniel BöhringerEye Center, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9042-0508
Thomas ReinhardEye Center, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4937-6936
Felix HeilmeyerCenter for Digitization in Medicine, University Medical Center Freiburg, Freiburg im Breisgau, Baden Wuerttemberg, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9068-2679

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe growing administrative burden on clinicians, particularly in medical documentation, contributes to burnout and may compromise patient safety. Recent advancements in generative artificial intelligence (AI) offer a promising solution to improve documentation processes and address these challenges.

objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the feasibility of using a fine-tuned OpenAI Curie model to automate the generation of medical report summaries (epicrises) in ophthalmology. By assessing the model's performance through human and automated evaluations, this study seeks to determine its potential for reducing clinician workload while ensuring accuracy, usefulness, and compliance with regulatory requirements.

methodsA data set of around 60,000 anonymized medical letters was created using a custom algorithm to comply with General Data Protection Regulation guidelines. The Curie model was fine-tuned on this data set to generate epicrises from medical histories, diagnoses, and findings. The performance evaluation involved various human assessments and automated evaluations from 2 large language models (LLMs).

resultsIn the clinical context, 49.9% (384/769) of epicrises were evaluated as helpful or excellent, whereas only 25% (194/769) were considered disturbing. In a human (manual) evaluation, formal correctness was rated significantly higher than the neutral midpoint of 2.5 on the 4-point rating scale, as determined by a 1-sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test (mean 3.59, SD 0.85; W=1686; P<.001). Using paired t tests, we found a significant reduction in time, as correcting an AI epicrisis was faster than manually writing one (mean 109.52, SD 53.30 vs mean 54.25, SD 63.34 s; t

conclusionsOur study demonstrates the technical and practical feasibility of introducing fine-tuned commercial LLMs into clinical practice. The AI-generated epicrises were formally and clinically correct in many cases and showed time-saving potential. While medical accuracy and usefulness varied across cases and should be focused on in further developments, a significant workload reduction is likely. Our anonymization process showed that regulatory challenges in the context of AI with patient data can effectively be dealt with. In summary, this study highlights the promise of transformer-based LLMs in reducing administrative tasks in health care. It outlines a pipeline for integrating LLMs into European Union clinical practice, emphasizing the need for careful implementation to ensure efficiency and patient safety.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencedocumentation automationepicrisis generationlarge language modelsmedical reports

Identifiers

PMID41297038
PMCPMC12696452

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.