Closed-Loop Quality Assurance for Production Clinical AI Documentation
Napier, A.; Wiley, J.; Heslin, M.
Show abstract
A closed-loop quality system deployed across thirteen US hospital sites resolved physician complaints with zero regressions on 42 tracked cases across 1,089 optimization iterations, while a deterministic assembly-agent replacement cut H+P trace latency from 19.6 s to 10.8 s (-8.8 s, 95% CI [-10.5, -7.1] s; n = 100 pre, n = 100 post). We report four observations and an architectural follow-through. First, the same binary-check instrument produces opposite outcomes depending on the question asked: "maximize this score" produces structurally-correct notes that physicians reject (Spearman rho = -0.077, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.26], n = 36); "did this specific fabrication stop?" produces rater-invariant deployment decisions. Second, in our pipeline, assembly-stage agents did not respond to prompt optimization the way reasoning agents did: four consecutive optimization attempts produced 18-28 point regressions. Third, physician preference is rater-fragile at typical clinical-AI calibration sample sizes (Cohen's kappa = 0.028 between two board-certified physicians, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.36] on n = 35 overlapping pairs). Fourth, the architectural punchline: six weeks after the prediction, the LLM call at the chart-assembly step was replaced with a deterministic renderer (sub-500-character template plus sandboxed scripting), lifting the defect-free rate on a 51-case holdout from 49% to 84%. We introduce a Pareto-with-absolute-floors acceptance rule (multi-axis commit with severity-class categorical vetoes) as a methodological contribution distinct from scalar-reward acceptance in standard prompt-optimization frameworks. Cross-iteration rejection memory prevents the loop from re-proposing edits already rejected three or more times. A reproducibility bundle (anonymized ablation per-case counts, bootstrap-CI data, analysis scripts) is released under CC BY 4.0 at github.com/sayvant/SQS-Auditor-paper-data.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- LCD Benchmark: Long Clinical Document Benchmark on Mortality Prediction for Language Models 92%
- Analysis of Eligibility Criteria Clusters Based on Large Language Models for Clinical Trial Design 91%
- A Novel Question-Answering Framework for Automated Abstract Screening Using Large Language Models 91%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- A Study of Calibration as a Measurement of Trustworthiness of Large Language Models in Biomedical Research 93%
- Using indication embeddings to represent patient health for drug safety studies 91%
- Natural Language Processing for Automated Annotation of Medication Mentions in Primary Care Visit Conversations 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"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.