Criteria and Protocol: Assessing Generative AI Efficacy in Perceiving EULAR 2019 Lupus Classification.

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Gerald H Lushington, Sandeep Nair, Eldon R Jupe, Bernard Rubin, Mohan Purushothaman
{"title":"Criteria and Protocol: Assessing Generative AI Efficacy in Perceiving EULAR 2019 Lupus Classification.","authors":"Gerald H Lushington, Sandeep Nair, Eldon R Jupe, Bernard Rubin, Mohan Purushothaman","doi":"10.3390/diagnostics15182409","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background/Objectives:</b> In clinical informatics, the term 'information overload' is increasingly used to describe the operational impediments of excessive documentation. While electronic health records (EHRs) are growing in abundance, many medical records (MRs) remain in legacy formats that impede efficient, systematic processing, contributing to the extenuating challenges of care fragmentation. Thus, there is a growing interest in using generative AI (genAI) for automated MR summarization and characterization. <b>Methods:</b> MRs for a set of 78 individuals were digitized. Some were known systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cases, while others were under evaluation for possible SLE classification. A two-pass genAI assessment strategy was implemented using the Claude 3.5 large language model (LLM) to mine MRs for information relevant to classifying SLE vs. undifferentiated connective tissue disorder (UCTD) vs. neither via the 22-criteria EULAR 2019 model. <b>Results:</b> Compared to clinical determination, the antinuclear antibody (ANA) criterion (whose results are crucial for classifying SLE-negative cases) exhibited favorable sensitivity 0.78 ± 0.09 (95% confidence interval) and a positive predictive value 0.85 ± 0.08 but a marginal performance for specificity 0.60 ± 0.11 and uncertain predictivity for the negative predictive value 0.48 ± 0.11. Averaged over the remaining 21 criteria, these four performance metrics were 0.69 ± 0.11, 0.87 ± 0.04, 0.54 ± 0.10, and 0.93 ± 0.03. <b>Conclusions:</b> ANA performance statistics imply that genAI yields confident assessments of SLE negativity (per high sensitivity) but weaker positivity. The remaining genAI criterial determinations support (per specificity) confident assertions of SLE-positivity but tend to misclassify a significant fraction of clinical positives as UCTD.</p>","PeriodicalId":11225,"journal":{"name":"Diagnostics","volume":"15 18","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12468409/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Diagnostics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics15182409","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Objectives: In clinical informatics, the term 'information overload' is increasingly used to describe the operational impediments of excessive documentation. While electronic health records (EHRs) are growing in abundance, many medical records (MRs) remain in legacy formats that impede efficient, systematic processing, contributing to the extenuating challenges of care fragmentation. Thus, there is a growing interest in using generative AI (genAI) for automated MR summarization and characterization. Methods: MRs for a set of 78 individuals were digitized. Some were known systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) cases, while others were under evaluation for possible SLE classification. A two-pass genAI assessment strategy was implemented using the Claude 3.5 large language model (LLM) to mine MRs for information relevant to classifying SLE vs. undifferentiated connective tissue disorder (UCTD) vs. neither via the 22-criteria EULAR 2019 model. Results: Compared to clinical determination, the antinuclear antibody (ANA) criterion (whose results are crucial for classifying SLE-negative cases) exhibited favorable sensitivity 0.78 ± 0.09 (95% confidence interval) and a positive predictive value 0.85 ± 0.08 but a marginal performance for specificity 0.60 ± 0.11 and uncertain predictivity for the negative predictive value 0.48 ± 0.11. Averaged over the remaining 21 criteria, these four performance metrics were 0.69 ± 0.11, 0.87 ± 0.04, 0.54 ± 0.10, and 0.93 ± 0.03. Conclusions: ANA performance statistics imply that genAI yields confident assessments of SLE negativity (per high sensitivity) but weaker positivity. The remaining genAI criterial determinations support (per specificity) confident assertions of SLE-positivity but tend to misclassify a significant fraction of clinical positives as UCTD.

标准和方案:评估生成人工智能感知EULAR 2019狼疮分类的有效性。
背景/目的:在临床信息学中,术语“信息过载”越来越多地用于描述过多文档的操作障碍。虽然电子健康记录(EHRs)越来越多,但许多医疗记录(MRs)仍然采用传统格式,阻碍了高效、系统的处理,从而加剧了护理碎片化的挑战。因此,人们对使用生成式人工智能(genAI)进行自动MR总结和表征越来越感兴趣。方法:对78例个体的mr进行数字化处理。其中一些是已知的系统性红斑狼疮(SLE)病例,而另一些正在评估可能的SLE分类。使用Claude 3.5大语言模型(LLM)实施两步基因ai评估策略,通过22个标准的EULAR 2019模型挖掘MRs,以获取与SLE与未分化结缔组织疾病(UCTD)分类相关的信息。结果:与临床检测相比,抗核抗体(ANA)标准(其结果对sle阴性病例的分类至关重要)的敏感性为0.78±0.09(95%置信区间),阳性预测值为0.85±0.08,但特异性的边缘性能为0.60±0.11,阴性预测值为0.48±0.11,不确定。其余21项指标的平均值分别为0.69±0.11、0.87±0.04、0.54±0.10和0.93±0.03。结论:ANA性能统计数据表明,基因ai对SLE阴性(高灵敏度)产生了自信的评估,但阳性较弱。其余的基因标准测定(根据特异性)支持sled阳性的自信断言,但倾向于将相当一部分临床阳性误诊为UCTD。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Diagnostics
Diagnostics Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology-Clinical Biochemistry
CiteScore
4.70
自引率
8.30%
发文量
2699
审稿时长
19.64 days
期刊介绍: Diagnostics (ISSN 2075-4418) is an international scholarly open access journal on medical diagnostics. It publishes original research articles, reviews, communications and short notes on the research and development of medical diagnostics. There is no restriction on the length of the papers. Our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical research in as much detail as possible. Full experimental and/or methodological details must be provided for research articles.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信