大型语言模型有助于生成电子健康记录表型算法。

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Chao Yan, Henry H Ong, Monika E Grabowska, Matthew S Krantz, Wu-Chen Su, Alyson L Dickson, Josh F Peterson, QiPing Feng, Dan M Roden, C Michael Stein, V Eric Kerchberger, Bradley A Malin, Wei-Qi Wei
{"title":"大型语言模型有助于生成电子健康记录表型算法。","authors":"Chao Yan, Henry H Ong, Monika E Grabowska, Matthew S Krantz, Wu-Chen Su, Alyson L Dickson, Josh F Peterson, QiPing Feng, Dan M Roden, C Michael Stein, V Eric Kerchberger, Bradley A Malin, Wei-Qi Wei","doi":"10.1093/jamia/ocae072","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Phenotyping is a core task in observational health research utilizing electronic health records (EHRs). Developing an accurate algorithm demands substantial input from domain experts, involving extensive literature review and evidence synthesis. This burdensome process limits scalability and delays knowledge discovery. We investigate the potential for leveraging large language models (LLMs) to enhance the efficiency of EHR phenotyping by generating high-quality algorithm drafts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We prompted four LLMs-GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 of ChatGPT, Claude 2, and Bard-in October 2023, asking them to generate executable phenotyping algorithms in the form of SQL queries adhering to a common data model (CDM) for three phenotypes (ie, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia, and hypothyroidism). Three phenotyping experts evaluated the returned algorithms across several critical metrics. We further implemented the top-rated algorithms and compared them against clinician-validated phenotyping algorithms from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 exhibited significantly higher overall expert evaluation scores in instruction following, algorithmic logic, and SQL executability, when compared to Claude 2 and Bard. Although GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 effectively identified relevant clinical concepts, they exhibited immature capability in organizing phenotyping criteria with the proper logic, leading to phenotyping algorithms that were either excessively restrictive (with low recall) or overly broad (with low positive predictive values).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT versions 3.5 and 4 are capable of drafting phenotyping algorithms by identifying relevant clinical criteria aligned with a CDM. However, expertise in informatics and clinical experience is still required to assess and further refine generated algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":50016,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","volume":" ","pages":"1994-2001"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339509/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Large language models facilitate the generation of electronic health record phenotyping algorithms.\",\"authors\":\"Chao Yan, Henry H Ong, Monika E Grabowska, Matthew S Krantz, Wu-Chen Su, Alyson L Dickson, Josh F Peterson, QiPing Feng, Dan M Roden, C Michael Stein, V Eric Kerchberger, Bradley A Malin, Wei-Qi Wei\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jamia/ocae072\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Phenotyping is a core task in observational health research utilizing electronic health records (EHRs). Developing an accurate algorithm demands substantial input from domain experts, involving extensive literature review and evidence synthesis. This burdensome process limits scalability and delays knowledge discovery. We investigate the potential for leveraging large language models (LLMs) to enhance the efficiency of EHR phenotyping by generating high-quality algorithm drafts.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>We prompted four LLMs-GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 of ChatGPT, Claude 2, and Bard-in October 2023, asking them to generate executable phenotyping algorithms in the form of SQL queries adhering to a common data model (CDM) for three phenotypes (ie, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia, and hypothyroidism). Three phenotyping experts evaluated the returned algorithms across several critical metrics. We further implemented the top-rated algorithms and compared them against clinician-validated phenotyping algorithms from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 exhibited significantly higher overall expert evaluation scores in instruction following, algorithmic logic, and SQL executability, when compared to Claude 2 and Bard. Although GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 effectively identified relevant clinical concepts, they exhibited immature capability in organizing phenotyping criteria with the proper logic, leading to phenotyping algorithms that were either excessively restrictive (with low recall) or overly broad (with low positive predictive values).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>GPT versions 3.5 and 4 are capable of drafting phenotyping algorithms by identifying relevant clinical criteria aligned with a CDM. However, expertise in informatics and clinical experience is still required to assess and further refine generated algorithms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50016,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1994-2001\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11339509/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"91\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae072\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae072","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, INFORMATION SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:表型分析是利用电子健康记录(EHR)进行健康观察研究的一项核心任务。开发准确的算法需要领域专家的大量投入,涉及广泛的文献综述和证据合成。这一繁琐的过程限制了可扩展性,延误了知识发现。我们研究了利用大型语言模型(LLM)通过生成高质量算法草案来提高 EHR 表型分析效率的潜力:我们在 2023 年 10 月向 ChatGPT、Claude 2 和 Bard 的四个 LLM-GPT-4 和 GPT-3.5,要求它们为三种表型(即 2 型糖尿病、痴呆症和甲状腺功能减退症)生成符合通用数据模型 (CDM) 的 SQL 查询形式的可执行表型算法。三位表型鉴定专家根据几个关键指标对返回的算法进行了评估。我们进一步实施了评级最高的算法,并将它们与电子病历和基因组学(eMERGE)网络中经临床医生验证的表型算法进行了比较:结果:与克劳德2和巴德相比,GPT-4和GPT-3.5在指令遵循、算法逻辑和SQL可执行性方面的专家总体评价得分明显更高。虽然GPT-4和GPT-3.5能有效识别相关的临床概念,但它们在用适当的逻辑组织表型标准方面表现出不成熟的能力,导致表型算法要么限制性过强(召回率低),要么过于宽泛(阳性预测值低):结论:GPT 3.5 和 4 版本能够通过识别与 CDM 一致的相关临床标准来起草表型分析算法。然而,评估和进一步完善生成的算法仍需要信息学方面的专业知识和临床经验。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Large language models facilitate the generation of electronic health record phenotyping algorithms.

Objectives: Phenotyping is a core task in observational health research utilizing electronic health records (EHRs). Developing an accurate algorithm demands substantial input from domain experts, involving extensive literature review and evidence synthesis. This burdensome process limits scalability and delays knowledge discovery. We investigate the potential for leveraging large language models (LLMs) to enhance the efficiency of EHR phenotyping by generating high-quality algorithm drafts.

Materials and methods: We prompted four LLMs-GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 of ChatGPT, Claude 2, and Bard-in October 2023, asking them to generate executable phenotyping algorithms in the form of SQL queries adhering to a common data model (CDM) for three phenotypes (ie, type 2 diabetes mellitus, dementia, and hypothyroidism). Three phenotyping experts evaluated the returned algorithms across several critical metrics. We further implemented the top-rated algorithms and compared them against clinician-validated phenotyping algorithms from the Electronic Medical Records and Genomics (eMERGE) network.

Results: GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 exhibited significantly higher overall expert evaluation scores in instruction following, algorithmic logic, and SQL executability, when compared to Claude 2 and Bard. Although GPT-4 and GPT-3.5 effectively identified relevant clinical concepts, they exhibited immature capability in organizing phenotyping criteria with the proper logic, leading to phenotyping algorithms that were either excessively restrictive (with low recall) or overly broad (with low positive predictive values).

Conclusion: GPT versions 3.5 and 4 are capable of drafting phenotyping algorithms by identifying relevant clinical criteria aligned with a CDM. However, expertise in informatics and clinical experience is still required to assess and further refine generated algorithms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 医学-计算机:跨学科应用
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
7.80%
发文量
230
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: JAMIA is AMIA''s premier peer-reviewed journal for biomedical and health informatics. Covering the full spectrum of activities in the field, JAMIA includes informatics articles in the areas of clinical care, clinical research, translational science, implementation science, imaging, education, consumer health, public health, and policy. JAMIA''s articles describe innovative informatics research and systems that help to advance biomedical science and to promote health. Case reports, perspectives and reviews also help readers stay connected with the most important informatics developments in implementation, policy and education.
×
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