ArticleAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium2024
An LLM-Powered Clinical Calculator Chatbot Backed by Verifiable Clinical Calculators and their Metadata.
Article in AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical calculators are widely used, and large language models (LLMs) make it possible to engage them using natural language. We demonstrate a purpose-built chatbot that leverages (1) software implementations of verifiable clinical calculators via LLM tools, and (2) metadata about these calculators via retrieval augmented generation (RAG). We compare its accuracy to an unassisted LLM on four natural language conversation workloads. Our chatbot achieves 100% accuracy on queries interrogating calculator metadata content and shows a significant increase in clinical calculation accuracy vs. the off-the-shelf LLM when prompted with complete sentences (86.4% vs. 61.8%) or with medical shorthand (79.2% vs. 62.0%). It eliminates calculation errors when prompted with complete sentences (0% vs. 16.8%) and greatly reduces them when prompted with medical shorthand (2.4% vs. 18%). While our chatbot is not yet ready for clinical use, these results show progress in minimizing incorrect calculation results.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41726491PMC12919512What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.