将患者价值观纳入大语言模型推荐的代理和委托决定中。

Q4 Medicine
Critical care explorations Pub Date : 2024-08-12 eCollection Date: 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1097/CCE.0000000000001131
Victoria J Nolan, Jeremy A Balch, Naveen P Baskaran, Benjamin Shickel, Philip A Efron, Gilbert R Upchurch, Azra Bihorac, Christopher J Tignanelli, Ray E Moseley, Tyler J Loftus
{"title":"将患者价值观纳入大语言模型推荐的代理和委托决定中。","authors":"Victoria J Nolan, Jeremy A Balch, Naveen P Baskaran, Benjamin Shickel, Philip A Efron, Gilbert R Upchurch, Azra Bihorac, Christopher J Tignanelli, Ray E Moseley, Tyler J Loftus","doi":"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001131","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surrogates, proxies, and clinicians making shared treatment decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity often fail to honor patients' wishes, due to stress, time pressures, misunderstanding patient values, and projecting personal biases. Advance directives intend to align care with patient values but are limited by low completion rates and application to only a subset of medical decisions. Here, we investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to incorporate patient values in supporting critical care clinical decision-making for incapacitated patients in a proof-of-concept study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We simulated text-based scenarios for 50 decisionally incapacitated patients for whom a medical condition required imminent clinical decisions regarding specific interventions. For each patient, we also simulated five unique value profiles captured using alternative formats: numeric ranking questionnaires, text-based questionnaires, and free-text narratives. We used pre-trained generative LLMs for two tasks: 1) text extraction of the treatments under consideration and 2) prompt-based question-answering to generate a recommendation in response to the scenario information, extracted treatment, and patient value profiles. Model outputs were compared with adjudications by three domain experts who independently evaluated each scenario and decision.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>Automated extractions of the treatment in question were accurate for 88% (n = 44/50) of scenarios. LLM treatment recommendations received an average Likert score by the adjudicators of 3.92 of 5.00 (five being best) across all patients for being medically plausible and reasonable treatment recommendations, and 3.58 of 5.00 for reflecting the documented values of the patient. Scores were highest when patient values were captured as short, unstructured, and free-text narratives based on simulated patient profiles. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the potential for LLMs to function as support tools for surrogates, proxies, and clinicians aiming to honor the wishes and values of decisionally incapacitated patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":93957,"journal":{"name":"Critical care explorations","volume":"6 8","pages":"e1131"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321752/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Incorporating Patient Values in Large Language Model Recommendations for Surrogate and Proxy Decisions.\",\"authors\":\"Victoria J Nolan, Jeremy A Balch, Naveen P Baskaran, Benjamin Shickel, Philip A Efron, Gilbert R Upchurch, Azra Bihorac, Christopher J Tignanelli, Ray E Moseley, Tyler J Loftus\",\"doi\":\"10.1097/CCE.0000000000001131\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Surrogates, proxies, and clinicians making shared treatment decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity often fail to honor patients' wishes, due to stress, time pressures, misunderstanding patient values, and projecting personal biases. Advance directives intend to align care with patient values but are limited by low completion rates and application to only a subset of medical decisions. Here, we investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to incorporate patient values in supporting critical care clinical decision-making for incapacitated patients in a proof-of-concept study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We simulated text-based scenarios for 50 decisionally incapacitated patients for whom a medical condition required imminent clinical decisions regarding specific interventions. For each patient, we also simulated five unique value profiles captured using alternative formats: numeric ranking questionnaires, text-based questionnaires, and free-text narratives. We used pre-trained generative LLMs for two tasks: 1) text extraction of the treatments under consideration and 2) prompt-based question-answering to generate a recommendation in response to the scenario information, extracted treatment, and patient value profiles. Model outputs were compared with adjudications by three domain experts who independently evaluated each scenario and decision.</p><p><strong>Results and conclusions: </strong>Automated extractions of the treatment in question were accurate for 88% (n = 44/50) of scenarios. LLM treatment recommendations received an average Likert score by the adjudicators of 3.92 of 5.00 (five being best) across all patients for being medically plausible and reasonable treatment recommendations, and 3.58 of 5.00 for reflecting the documented values of the patient. Scores were highest when patient values were captured as short, unstructured, and free-text narratives based on simulated patient profiles. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the potential for LLMs to function as support tools for surrogates, proxies, and clinicians aiming to honor the wishes and values of decisionally incapacitated patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93957,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"volume\":\"6 8\",\"pages\":\"e1131\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11321752/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Critical care explorations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001131\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/8/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Critical care explorations","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000001131","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:由于压力、时间紧迫、对患者价值观的误解以及个人偏见的影响,为丧失决策能力的患者做出共同治疗决定的代理、代理人和临床医生往往无法尊重患者的意愿。预先医疗指示旨在使医疗服务与患者的价值观保持一致,但由于完成率低以及仅适用于部分医疗决策而受到限制。在此,我们通过一项概念验证研究,探讨了大语言模型(LLMs)在支持无行为能力患者的重症监护临床决策中纳入患者价值观的潜力:方法:我们模拟了 50 名无决策能力患者的文本情景,这些患者的医疗状况要求对特定干预措施做出迫在眉睫的临床决策。我们还为每位患者模拟了五种独特的价值概况,这些概况是通过其他格式获取的:数字排名问卷、基于文本的问卷和自由文本叙述。我们在两项任务中使用了预先训练好的生成式 LLM:1)对考虑中的治疗方法进行文本提取;2)根据情景信息、提取的治疗方法和患者价值概况生成建议,并进行基于提示的问题解答。模型输出结果与三名领域专家的裁定结果进行了比较,这三名专家独立评估了每种情景和决策:88%(n = 44/50)的情景中,自动提取的相关治疗方法是准确的。在所有患者中,LLM 治疗建议的医学可信度和合理性得到了评审员平均 3.92 分(5.00 分,5 分最佳)的 Likert 评分,在反映患者的文件价值方面得到了 3.58 分(5.00 分)的 Likert 评分。当病人的价值观以简短、非结构化和基于模拟病人档案的自由文本叙述的方式记录时,得分最高。这项概念验证研究表明,LLMs 有潜力成为代理、代理人和临床医生的支持工具,以尊重无决策能力患者的意愿和价值观。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Incorporating Patient Values in Large Language Model Recommendations for Surrogate and Proxy Decisions.

Background: Surrogates, proxies, and clinicians making shared treatment decisions for patients who have lost decision-making capacity often fail to honor patients' wishes, due to stress, time pressures, misunderstanding patient values, and projecting personal biases. Advance directives intend to align care with patient values but are limited by low completion rates and application to only a subset of medical decisions. Here, we investigate the potential of large language models (LLMs) to incorporate patient values in supporting critical care clinical decision-making for incapacitated patients in a proof-of-concept study.

Methods: We simulated text-based scenarios for 50 decisionally incapacitated patients for whom a medical condition required imminent clinical decisions regarding specific interventions. For each patient, we also simulated five unique value profiles captured using alternative formats: numeric ranking questionnaires, text-based questionnaires, and free-text narratives. We used pre-trained generative LLMs for two tasks: 1) text extraction of the treatments under consideration and 2) prompt-based question-answering to generate a recommendation in response to the scenario information, extracted treatment, and patient value profiles. Model outputs were compared with adjudications by three domain experts who independently evaluated each scenario and decision.

Results and conclusions: Automated extractions of the treatment in question were accurate for 88% (n = 44/50) of scenarios. LLM treatment recommendations received an average Likert score by the adjudicators of 3.92 of 5.00 (five being best) across all patients for being medically plausible and reasonable treatment recommendations, and 3.58 of 5.00 for reflecting the documented values of the patient. Scores were highest when patient values were captured as short, unstructured, and free-text narratives based on simulated patient profiles. This proof-of-concept study demonstrates the potential for LLMs to function as support tools for surrogates, proxies, and clinicians aiming to honor the wishes and values of decisionally incapacitated patients.

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
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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