Hepatology e-consult responses generated by artificial intelligence demonstrate accuracy but require human oversight.

Abstract

Background: Electronic consultations (e-consults) improve specialist access but burden providers. We developed LiVersa, a customized large language model (LLM) for liver diseases. We evaluated its performance in drafting hepatology e-consult responses and the equivalence between human and machine reviewers.

Methods: LiVersa-generated responses for hepatology e-consults answered at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF) from January to March 2025. Using a 12-item rubric, 3 independent hepatologists and "LLM-as-a-judge" (OpenAI-o1) evaluated drafts against original responses. We tested equivalence between human reviewers and "LLM-as-a-judge" using two one-sided tests (TOST).

Results: Among 61 e-consults, the most common categories were abnormal liver function tests (34%), hepatitis B (23%), and abnormal imaging (21%). LiVersa drafts demonstrated no differences from hepatologist responses in word count (284 vs. 264, p=0.47) and verbosity (24 vs. 25 words per sentence, p=0.44). Human reviewers rated 72% of drafts as reasonable starting points and 83% as providing appropriate case-specific recommendations; 10% contained misleading/incorrect information, and 3.4% posed a risk of severe harm. LiVersa performed better at avoiding misleading information and extraneous suggestions but scored lower on clinical equivalence, immediate usability, and comprehensiveness. LLM-based reviewers were more stringent than human reviewers, rating fewer drafts as clinically equivalent (27% vs. 48%) and more as potentially harmful (67% vs. 20%), with agreement on accuracy, precision, and comprehensiveness (mean difference 0.026-0.029; TOST p<0.05).

Conclusions: Customized LLMs like LiVersa show promise for e-consult drafting but require human oversight. LLM-as-a-judge was more conservative than humans, supporting its role in rapid quality assurance during model updates.