在临床和转化研究的生物统计工作流程中集成大型语言模型。

IF 2 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science Pub Date : 2025-05-30 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1017/cts.2025.10064
Steven C Grambow, Manisha Desai, Kevin P Weinfurt, Christopher J Lindsell, Michael J Pencina, Lacey Rende, Gina-Maria Pomann
{"title":"在临床和转化研究的生物统计工作流程中集成大型语言模型。","authors":"Steven C Grambow, Manisha Desai, Kevin P Weinfurt, Christopher J Lindsell, Michael J Pencina, Lacey Rende, Gina-Maria Pomann","doi":"10.1017/cts.2025.10064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biostatisticians increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to enhance efficiency, yet practical guidance on responsible integration is limited. This study explores current LLM usage, challenges, and training needs to support biostatisticians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted across three biostatistics units at two academic medical centers. The survey assessed LLM usage across three key professional activities: communication and leadership, clinical and domain knowledge, and quantitative expertise. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while free-text responses underwent thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 208 eligible biostatisticians (162 staff and 46 faculty), 69 (33.2%) responded. Among them, 44 (63.8%) reported using LLMs; of the 43 who answered the frequency question, 20 (46.5%) used them daily and 16 (37.2%) weekly. LLMs improved productivity in coding, writing, and literature review; however, 29 of 41 respondents (70.7%) reported significant errors, including incorrect code, statistical misinterpretations, and hallucinated functions. Key verification strategies included expertise, external validation, debugging, and manual inspection. Among 58 respondents providing training feedback, 44 (75.9%) requested case studies, 40 (69.0%) sought interactive tutorials, and 37 (63.8%) desired structured training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLM usage is notable among respondents at two academic medical centers, though response patterns likely reflect early adopters. While LLMs enhance productivity, challenges like errors and reliability concerns highlight the need for verification strategies and systematic validation. The strong interest in training underscores the need for structured guidance. As an initial step, we propose eight core principles for responsible LLM integration, offering a preliminary framework for structured usage, validation, and ethical considerations.</p>","PeriodicalId":15529,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","volume":"9 1","pages":"e131"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12260977/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows for clinical and translational research.\",\"authors\":\"Steven C Grambow, Manisha Desai, Kevin P Weinfurt, Christopher J Lindsell, Michael J Pencina, Lacey Rende, Gina-Maria Pomann\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/cts.2025.10064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Biostatisticians increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to enhance efficiency, yet practical guidance on responsible integration is limited. This study explores current LLM usage, challenges, and training needs to support biostatisticians.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A cross-sectional survey was conducted across three biostatistics units at two academic medical centers. The survey assessed LLM usage across three key professional activities: communication and leadership, clinical and domain knowledge, and quantitative expertise. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while free-text responses underwent thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 208 eligible biostatisticians (162 staff and 46 faculty), 69 (33.2%) responded. Among them, 44 (63.8%) reported using LLMs; of the 43 who answered the frequency question, 20 (46.5%) used them daily and 16 (37.2%) weekly. LLMs improved productivity in coding, writing, and literature review; however, 29 of 41 respondents (70.7%) reported significant errors, including incorrect code, statistical misinterpretations, and hallucinated functions. Key verification strategies included expertise, external validation, debugging, and manual inspection. Among 58 respondents providing training feedback, 44 (75.9%) requested case studies, 40 (69.0%) sought interactive tutorials, and 37 (63.8%) desired structured training.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>LLM usage is notable among respondents at two academic medical centers, though response patterns likely reflect early adopters. While LLMs enhance productivity, challenges like errors and reliability concerns highlight the need for verification strategies and systematic validation. The strong interest in training underscores the need for structured guidance. As an initial step, we propose eight core principles for responsible LLM integration, offering a preliminary framework for structured usage, validation, and ethical considerations.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15529,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"e131\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12260977/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10064\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical and Translational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2025.10064","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

生物统计学家越来越多地使用大型语言模型(llm)来提高效率,但对负责任的整合的实际指导是有限的。本研究探讨了当前LLM的使用、挑战和培训需求,以支持生物统计学家。方法:横断面调查在两个学术医学中心的三个生物统计学单位进行。该调查评估了LLM在三个关键专业活动中的使用情况:沟通和领导,临床和领域知识以及定量专业知识。使用描述性统计分析回复,而自由文本回复则进行主题分析。结果:在208名符合条件的生物统计学家(162名工作人员和46名教师)中,69名(33.2%)做出了回应。其中44家(63.8%)使用法学硕士;回答频率问题的43人中,20人(46.5%)每天使用,16人(37.2%)每周使用。llm提高了编码、写作和文献回顾方面的生产力;然而,41名受访者中有29人(70.7%)报告了重大错误,包括不正确的代码,统计误解和幻觉功能。关键的验证策略包括专家、外部验证、调试和手工检查。在58名提供培训反馈的受访者中,44名(75.9%)要求案例研究,40名(69.0%)要求交互式教程,37名(63.8%)希望进行结构化培训。结论:法学硕士的使用在两个学术医疗中心的受访者中是显着的,尽管响应模式可能反映了早期采用者。虽然法学硕士提高了生产力,但诸如错误和可靠性问题等挑战突出了对验证策略和系统验证的需求。对培训的强烈兴趣强调了有组织指导的必要性。作为第一步,我们为负责任的LLM集成提出了八个核心原则,为结构化使用、验证和道德考虑提供了初步框架。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows for clinical and translational research.

Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows for clinical and translational research.

Integrating large language models in biostatistical workflows for clinical and translational research.

Introduction: Biostatisticians increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to enhance efficiency, yet practical guidance on responsible integration is limited. This study explores current LLM usage, challenges, and training needs to support biostatisticians.

Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted across three biostatistics units at two academic medical centers. The survey assessed LLM usage across three key professional activities: communication and leadership, clinical and domain knowledge, and quantitative expertise. Responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics, while free-text responses underwent thematic analysis.

Results: Of 208 eligible biostatisticians (162 staff and 46 faculty), 69 (33.2%) responded. Among them, 44 (63.8%) reported using LLMs; of the 43 who answered the frequency question, 20 (46.5%) used them daily and 16 (37.2%) weekly. LLMs improved productivity in coding, writing, and literature review; however, 29 of 41 respondents (70.7%) reported significant errors, including incorrect code, statistical misinterpretations, and hallucinated functions. Key verification strategies included expertise, external validation, debugging, and manual inspection. Among 58 respondents providing training feedback, 44 (75.9%) requested case studies, 40 (69.0%) sought interactive tutorials, and 37 (63.8%) desired structured training.

Conclusions: LLM usage is notable among respondents at two academic medical centers, though response patterns likely reflect early adopters. While LLMs enhance productivity, challenges like errors and reliability concerns highlight the need for verification strategies and systematic validation. The strong interest in training underscores the need for structured guidance. As an initial step, we propose eight core principles for responsible LLM integration, offering a preliminary framework for structured usage, validation, and ethical considerations.

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 Clinical and Translational Science
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL-
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
26.90%
发文量
437
审稿时长
18 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信