Automating Adjudication of Cardiovascular Events Using Large Language Models.

AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium Pub Date : 2025-05-22 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01
Sonish Sivarajkumar, Kimia Ameri, Chuqin Li, Yanshan Wang, Min Jiang
{"title":"Automating Adjudication of Cardiovascular Events Using Large Language Models.","authors":"Sonish Sivarajkumar, Kimia Ameri, Chuqin Li, Yanshan Wang, Min Jiang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cardiovascular event adjudication is essential in clinical trials but relies on manual chart review that is slow, variable, and expensive. We present a two-stage framework that automates adjudication of cardiovascular deaths using large language models (LLMs). First, a few-shot LLM extracts structured evidence (event, span, negation, date) from unstructured clinical documents. Second, a Tree-of-Thoughts adjudicator aligns its reasoning with clinical endpoint committee (CEC) guidelines to classify deaths as cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular and produce an auditable rationale. On Lilly clinical-trial data, extraction achieved precision 0.96, recall 0.71 (F1 0.82), and adjudication attained 0.68 accuracy (GPT-4 ToT), outperforming a summarizer-plus-adjudicator baseline. We introduce CLEART, a rubric-based automated score that quantifies rationale quality across clarity, consistency, detail, guideline adherence, relevance, and timeline accuracy (overall 0.67), highlighting temporal reasoning and relevance as key areas for improvement. This approach can reduce adjudication time and variability while increasing transparency.</p>","PeriodicalId":72180,"journal":{"name":"AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium","volume":"2024 ","pages":"1219-1228"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12919421/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Cardiovascular event adjudication is essential in clinical trials but relies on manual chart review that is slow, variable, and expensive. We present a two-stage framework that automates adjudication of cardiovascular deaths using large language models (LLMs). First, a few-shot LLM extracts structured evidence (event, span, negation, date) from unstructured clinical documents. Second, a Tree-of-Thoughts adjudicator aligns its reasoning with clinical endpoint committee (CEC) guidelines to classify deaths as cardiovascular or non-cardiovascular and produce an auditable rationale. On Lilly clinical-trial data, extraction achieved precision 0.96, recall 0.71 (F1 0.82), and adjudication attained 0.68 accuracy (GPT-4 ToT), outperforming a summarizer-plus-adjudicator baseline. We introduce CLEART, a rubric-based automated score that quantifies rationale quality across clarity, consistency, detail, guideline adherence, relevance, and timeline accuracy (overall 0.67), highlighting temporal reasoning and relevance as key areas for improvement. This approach can reduce adjudication time and variability while increasing transparency.

使用大型语言模型自动判定心血管事件。
心血管事件的判定在临床试验中是必不可少的,但依赖于手动图表审查,这是缓慢的,可变的,昂贵的。我们提出了一个使用大型语言模型(llm)自动判定心血管死亡的两阶段框架。首先,法学硕士从非结构化的临床文件中提取结构化证据(事件、跨度、否定、日期)。其次,思想树审查员将其推理与临床终点委员会(CEC)指南相一致,将死亡分类为心血管或非心血管死亡,并产生可审计的理由。在Lilly临床试验数据中,提取精度为0.96,召回率为0.71 (F1为0.82),判断准确率为0.68 (GPT-4 ToT),优于总结者+判断者基线。我们介绍了clearart,这是一个基于规则的自动评分,它通过清晰度、一致性、细节、指南遵循、相关性和时间轴准确性来量化基本原理的质量(总体0.67),突出了时间推理和相关性作为改进的关键领域。这种方法可以减少裁决时间和可变性,同时增加透明度。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
小红书