Back

Evaluating Large Language Models for Drafting Emergency Department Discharge Summaries

Williams, C. Y. K.; Bains, J.; Tang, T.; Patel, K.; Lucas, A. N.; Chen, F.; Miao, B. Y.; Butte, A. J.; Kornblith, A. E.

2024-04-04 health informatics
10.1101/2024.04.03.24305088 medRxiv
Show abstract

ImportanceLarge language models (LLMs) possess a range of capabilities which may be applied to the clinical domain, including text summarization. As ambient artificial intelligence scribes and other LLM-based tools begin to be deployed within healthcare settings, rigorous evaluations of the accuracy of these technologies are urgently needed. ObjectiveTo investigate the performance of GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo in generating Emergency Department (ED) discharge summaries and evaluate the prevalence and type of errors across each section of the discharge summary. DesignCross-sectional study. SettingUniversity of California, San Francisco ED. ParticipantsWe identified all adult ED visits from 2012 to 2023 with an ED clinician note. We randomly selected a sample of 100 ED visits for GPT-summarization. ExposureWe investigate the potential of two state-of-the-art LLMs, GPT-4 and GPT-3.5-turbo, to summarize the full ED clinician note into a discharge summary. Main Outcomes and MeasuresGPT-3.5-turbo and GPT-4-generated discharge summaries were evaluated by two independent Emergency Medicine physician reviewers across three evaluation criteria: 1) Inaccuracy of GPT-summarized information; 2) Hallucination of information; 3) Omission of relevant clinical information. On identifying each error, reviewers were additionally asked to provide a brief explanation for their reasoning, which was manually classified into subgroups of errors. ResultsFrom 202,059 eligible ED visits, we randomly sampled 100 for GPT-generated summarization and then expert-driven evaluation. In total, 33% of summaries generated by GPT-4 and 10% of those generated by GPT-3.5-turbo were entirely error-free across all evaluated domains. Summaries generated by GPT-4 were mostly accurate, with inaccuracies found in only 10% of cases, however, 42% of the summaries exhibited hallucinations and 47% omitted clinically relevant information. Inaccuracies and hallucinations were most commonly found in the Plan sections of GPT-generated summaries, while clinical omissions were concentrated in text describing patients Physical Examination findings or History of Presenting Complaint. Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cross-sectional study of 100 ED encounters, we found that LLMs could generate accurate discharge summaries, but were liable to hallucination and omission of clinically relevant information. A comprehensive understanding of the location and type of errors found in GPT-generated clinical text is important to facilitate clinician review of such content and prevent patient harm.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.