irAE-GPT: Leveraging large language models to identify immune-related adverse events in electronic health records and clinical trial datasets
Bejan, C. A.; Wang, M.; Venkateswaran, S.; Bergmann, E. A.; Hiles, L.; Xu, Y.; Chandler, G. S.; Brondfield, S.; Silverstein, J.; Wright, F.; de Dios, K.; Kim, D.; Mukherjee, E.; Krantz, M. S.; Yao, L.; Johnson, D. B.; Phillips, E. J.; Balko, J. M.; Mohindra, R.; Quandt, Z.
Show abstract
BackgroundLarge language models (LLMs) have emerged as transformative technologies, revolutionizing natural language understanding and generation across various domains, including medicine. In this study, we investigated the capabilities, limitations, and generalizability of Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models in analyzing unstructured patient notes from large healthcare datasets to identify immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with the use of immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) therapy. MethodsWe evaluated the performance of GPT-3.5, GPT-4, and GPT-4o models on manually annotated datasets of patients receiving ICI therapy, sampled from two electronic health record (EHR) systems and seven clinical trials. A zero-shot prompt was designed to exhaustively identify irAEs at the patient level (main analysis) and the note level (secondary analysis). The LLM-based system followed a multi-label classification approach to identify any combination of irAEs associated with individual patients or clinical notes. System evaluation was conducted for each available irAE as well as for broader categories of irAEs classified at the organ level. ResultsOur analysis included 442 patients across three institutions. The most common irAEs manually identified in the patient datasets included pneumonitis (N=64), colitis (N=56), rash (N=32), and hepatitis (N=28). Overall, GPT models achieved high sensitivity and specificity but only moderate positive predictive values, reflecting a potential bias towards overpredicting irAE outcomes. GPT-4o achieved the highest F1 and micro-averaged F1 scores for both patient-level and note-level evaluations. Highest performance was observed in the hematological (F1 range=1.0-1.0), gastrointestinal (F1 range=0.81-0.85), and musculoskeletal and rheumatologic (F1 range=0.67-1.0) irAE categories. Error analysis uncovered substantial limitations of GPT models in handling textual causation, where adverse events should not only be accurately identified in clinical text but also causally linked to immune checkpoint inhibitors. ConclusionThe GPT models demonstrated generalizable abilities in identifying irAEs across EHRs and clinical trial reports. Using GPT models to automate adverse event detection in large healthcare datasets will reduce the burden on physicians and healthcare professionals by eliminating the need for manual review. This will strengthen safety monitoring and lead to improved patient care.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Clinical Knowledge Extraction via Sparse Embedding Regression (KESER) with Multi-Center Large Scale Electronic Health Record Data 95%
- Finding Long-COVID: Temporal Topic Modeling of Electronic Health Records from the N3C and RECOVER Programs 94%
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Collaborative Large Language Models for Automated Data Extraction in Living Systematic Reviews 95%
- Large Language Models Facilitate the Generation of Electronic Health Record Phenotyping Algorithms 94%
- Analysis of Eligibility Criteria Clusters Based on Large Language Models for Clinical Trial Design 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Biomedical Text Normalization through Generative Modeling 94%
- Natural language processing for scalable feature engineering and ultra-high-dimensional confounding adjustment in healthcare database studies 94%
- Developing A Deep Learning Natural Language Processing Algorithm For Automated Reporting Of Adverse Drug Reactions 94%
"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.