Large Language Models Outperform Traditional Natural Language Processing Methods in Extracting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease

Perseus V. Patel , Conner Davis , Amariel Ralbovsky , Daniel Tinoco , Christopher Y.K. Williams , Shadera Slatter , Behzad Naderalvojoud , Michael J. Rosen , Tina Hernandez-Boussard , Vivek Rudrapatna
{"title":"Large Language Models Outperform Traditional Natural Language Processing Methods in Extracting Patient-Reported Outcomes in Inflammatory Bowel Disease","authors":"Perseus V. Patel ,&nbsp;Conner Davis ,&nbsp;Amariel Ralbovsky ,&nbsp;Daniel Tinoco ,&nbsp;Christopher Y.K. Williams ,&nbsp;Shadera Slatter ,&nbsp;Behzad Naderalvojoud ,&nbsp;Michael J. Rosen ,&nbsp;Tina Hernandez-Boussard ,&nbsp;Vivek Rudrapatna","doi":"10.1016/j.gastha.2024.10.003","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background and Aims</h3><div>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in assessing disease activity and treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, manual extraction of these PROs from the free-text of clinical notes is burdensome. We aimed to improve data curation from free-text information in the electronic health record, making it more available for research and quality improvement. This study aimed to compare traditional natural language processing (tNLP) and large language models (LLMs) in extracting 3 IBD PROs (abdominal pain, diarrhea, fecal blood) from clinical notes across 2 institutions.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Clinic notes were annotated for each PRO using preset protocols. Models were developed and internally tested at the University of California, San Francisco, and then externally validated at Stanford University. We compared tNLP and LLM-based models on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value. In addition, we conducted fairness and error assessments.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Interrater reliability between annotators was &gt;90%. On the University of California, San Francisco test set (n = 50), the top-performing tNLP models showcased accuracies of 92% (abdominal pain), 82% (diarrhea) and 80% (fecal blood), comparable to GPT-4, which was 96%, 88%, and 90% accurate, respectively. On external validation at Stanford (n = 250), tNLP models failed to generalize (61%–62% accuracy) while GPT-4 maintained accuracies &gt;90%. Pathways Language Model-2 and Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4 showed similar performance. No biases were detected based on demographics or diagnosis.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>LLMs are accurate and generalizable methods for extracting PROs. They maintain excellent accuracy across institutions, despite heterogeneity in note templates and authors. Widespread adoption of such tools has the potential to enhance IBD research and patient care.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":73130,"journal":{"name":"Gastro hep advances","volume":"4 2","pages":"Article 100563"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11772946/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gastro hep advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772572324001584","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background and Aims

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are vital in assessing disease activity and treatment outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). However, manual extraction of these PROs from the free-text of clinical notes is burdensome. We aimed to improve data curation from free-text information in the electronic health record, making it more available for research and quality improvement. This study aimed to compare traditional natural language processing (tNLP) and large language models (LLMs) in extracting 3 IBD PROs (abdominal pain, diarrhea, fecal blood) from clinical notes across 2 institutions.

Methods

Clinic notes were annotated for each PRO using preset protocols. Models were developed and internally tested at the University of California, San Francisco, and then externally validated at Stanford University. We compared tNLP and LLM-based models on accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive, and negative predictive value. In addition, we conducted fairness and error assessments.

Results

Interrater reliability between annotators was >90%. On the University of California, San Francisco test set (n = 50), the top-performing tNLP models showcased accuracies of 92% (abdominal pain), 82% (diarrhea) and 80% (fecal blood), comparable to GPT-4, which was 96%, 88%, and 90% accurate, respectively. On external validation at Stanford (n = 250), tNLP models failed to generalize (61%–62% accuracy) while GPT-4 maintained accuracies >90%. Pathways Language Model-2 and Generative Pre-trained Transformer-4 showed similar performance. No biases were detected based on demographics or diagnosis.

Conclusion

LLMs are accurate and generalizable methods for extracting PROs. They maintain excellent accuracy across institutions, despite heterogeneity in note templates and authors. Widespread adoption of such tools has the potential to enhance IBD research and patient care.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Gastro hep advances
Gastro hep advances Gastroenterology
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
64 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信