Cited by 207Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareTopic Modeling

Optimization of hepatological clinical guidelines interpretation by large language models: a retrieval augmented generation-based framework

Open access
Kresevic, Simone, Giuffrè, Mauro, Ajcevic, Milos, Accardo, Agostino, Crocè, Lory S., Shung, Dennis L.·2024·npj Digital Medicine

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) can potentially transform healthcare, particularly in providing the right information to the right provider at the right time in the hospital workflow. This study investigates the integration of LLMs into healthcare, specifically focusing on improving clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) through accurate interpretation of medical guidelines for chronic Hepatitis C Virus infection management. Utilizing OpenAI’s GPT-4 Turbo model, we developed a customized LLM framework that incorporates retrieval augmented generation (RAG) and prompt engineering. Our framework involved guideline conversion into the best-structured format that can be efficiently processed by LLMs to provide the most accurate output. An ablation study was conducted to evaluate the impact of different formatting and learning strategies on the LLM’s answer generation accuracy. The baseline GPT-4 Turbo model’s performance was compared against five experimental setups with increasing levels of complexity: inclusion of in-context guidelines, guideline reformatting, and implementation of few-shot learning. Our primary outcome was the qualitative assessment of accuracy based on expert review, while secondary outcomes included the quantitative measurement of similarity of LLM-generated responses to expert-provided answers using text-similarity scores. The results showed a significant improvement in accuracy from 43 to 99% ( p < 0.001), when guidelines were provided as context in a coherent corpus of text and non-text sources were converted into text. In addition, few-shot learning did not seem to improve overall accuracy. The study highlights that structured guideline reformatting and advanced prompt engineering (data quality vs. data quantity) can enhance the efficacy of LLM integrations to CDSSs for guideline delivery.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-024-01091-y

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 50

  1. [1]Peng C A study of generative large language model for medical research and healthcare NPJ Digit. Med. 2023 6 210 10.1038/s41746-023-00958-w 37973919 PMC10654385 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Thirunavukarasu AJ Large language models in medicine Nat. Med. 2023 29 1930 1940 10.1038/s41591-023-02448-8 37460753 · DOI · Paper page
  3. [3]Meskó B The imperative for regulatory oversight of large language models (or generative AI) in healthcare NPJ Digit. Med. 2023 6 120 10.1038/s41746-023-00873-0 37414860 PMC10326069 · DOI · Paper page
  4. [4]Singhal K Large language models encode clinical knowledge Nature 2023 620 172 180 10.1038/s41586-023-06291-2 37438534 PMC10396962 · DOI · Paper page
  5. [5]Webster P Six ways large language models are changing healthcare Nat. Med. 2023 29 2969 2971 10.1038/s41591-023-02700-1 38036704 · DOI
  6. [7]Mignini, L. Review of clinical practice guidelines. In Systematic Reviews to Support Evidence-Based Medicine 165–170 (CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2022). 10.1201/9781003220039-15. · DOI
  7. [9]Mesko B The ChatGPT (Generative Artificial Intelligence) revolution has made artificial intelligence approachable for medical professionals J. Med. Internet Res. 2023 25 e48392 10.2196/48392 37347508 PMC10337400 · DOI
  8. [10]Nori, H. et al. Capabilities of GPT-4 on medical challenge problems. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.13375 (2023). · arXiv
  9. [11]Scheurer, J. et al. Technical report: large language models can strategically deceive their users when put under pressure. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.07590 (2023). · arXiv
  10. [12]Lewis, P. et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11401 (2020). · arXiv
  11. [13]Ouyang, L. et al. Training language models to follow instructions with human feedback. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.02155 (2022). · arXiv
  12. [14]Falade-Nwulia O Oral direct-acting agent therapy for hepatitis C virus infection Ann. Intern. Med. 2017 166 637 10.7326/M16-2575 28319996 PMC5486987 · DOI
  13. [15]Moore JD Physician-level determinants of HCV screening during pregnancy in a U.S. sample Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2023 10.1007/s00404-023-07146-x 37454352 · DOI
  14. [16]Southern WN Physician nonadherence with a hepatitis C screening program Qual. Manag; Health Care 2014 23 1 9 10.1097/QMH.0000000000000007 24368717 PMC5464610 · DOI
  15. [18]Chen, A. et al. Evaluating Question Answering Evaluation. In Proc. 2nd Workshop on Machine Reading for Question Answering 119–124 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2019). 10.18653/v1/D19-5817. · DOI · Paper page
  16. [19]Tang L Evaluating large language models on medical evidence summarization NPJ Digit. Med. 2023 6 158 10.1038/s41746-023-00896-7 37620423 PMC10449915 · DOI · Paper page
  17. [20]Blagec, K. et al. A global analysis of metrics used for measuring performance in natural language processing. In Proc. NLP Power! The First Workshop on Efficient Benchmarking in NLP 52–63 (Association for Computational Linguistics, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2022). 10.18653/v1/2022.nlppower-1.6. · DOI
  18. [21]Fabbri AR SummEval: re-evaluating summarization evaluation Trans. Assoc. Comput Linguist 2021 9 391 409 10.1162/tacl_a_00373 · DOI · Paper page
  19. [23]Golden, G. et al. Applying artificial intelligence to clinical decision support in mental health: what have we learned? Health Policy Technol, 100844 10.1016/j.hlpt.2024.100844 (2024). · DOI
  20. [24]Tariq R Evolving landscape of large language models: an evaluation of ChatGPT and bard in answering patient queries on colonoscopy Gastroenterology 2024 166 220 221 10.1053/j.gastro.2023.08.033 37634736 · DOI
  21. [25]Lahat A Evaluating the utility of a large language model in answering common patients’ gastrointestinal health-related questions: are we there yet? Diagnostics 2023 13 1950 10.3390/diagnostics13111950 37296802 PMC10252924 · DOI
  22. [27]Gorelik Y language models for streamlined postcolonoscopy patient management: a novel approach Gastrointest. Endosc. 2023 98 639 641.e4 10.1016/j.gie.2023.06.025 37385548 · DOI
  23. [28]Henson JB Evaluation of the potential utility of an artificial intelligence chatbot in gastroesophageal reflux disease management Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2023 118 2276 2279 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002397 37410934 PMC10834834 · DOI
  24. [29]Emile SH How appropriate are answers of online chat-based artificial intelligence (ChatGPT) to common questions on colon cancer? Surgery 2023 174 1273 1275 10.1016/j.surg.2023.06.005 37482439 · DOI
  25. [30]Moazzam Z Quality of ChatGPT responses to questions related to pancreatic cancer and its surgical care Ann. Surg. Oncol. 2023 30 6284 6286 10.1245/s10434-023-13777-w 37349615 · DOI
  26. [31]Cankurtaran, R. E. et al. Reliability and usefulness of ChatGPT for inflammatory bowel diseases: an analysis for patients and healthcare professionals. Cureus10.7759/cureus.46736 (2023). PMC10630704 38022227
  27. [32]Levartovsky A Towards AI-augmented clinical decision-making: an examination of ChatGPT’s utility in acute ulcerative colitis presentations Am. J. Gastroenterol. 2023 118 2283 2289 10.14309/ajg.0000000000002483 37611254 · DOI
  28. [33]Patil NS Using artificial intelligence chatbots as a radiologic decision-making tool for liver imaging: do chatgpt and bard communicate information consistent with the ACR appropriateness criteria? J. Am. Coll. Radiol. 2023 20 1010 1013 10.1016/j.jacr.2023.07.010 37517768 · DOI
  29. [34]Pugliese, N. et al. Accuracy, reliability, and comprehensibility of chatgpt-generated medical responses for patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.10.1016/j.cgh.2023.08.033 (2023). 37716618 · DOI
  30. [35]Endo Y Quality of ChatGPT responses to questions related to liver transplantation J. Gastrointest. Surg. 2023 27 1716 1719 10.1007/s11605-023-05714-9 37254022 · DOI
  31. [36]Cao JJ Accuracy of information provided by ChatGPT regarding liver cancer surveillance and diagnosis Am. J. Roentgenol. 2023 221 556 559 10.2214/AJR.23.29493 37222278 · DOI
  32. [37]Yeo YH Assessing the performance of ChatGPT in answering questions regarding cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma Clin. Mol. Hepatol. 2023 29 721 732 10.3350/cmh.2023.0089 36946005 PMC10366809 · DOI
  33. [40]OpenAI et al. GPT-4 technical report. https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.08774 (2023). · arXiv
  34. [41]Masry, A. et al. ChartQA: a benchmark for question answering about charts with visual and logical reasoning. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2203.10244 (2022). · arXiv
  35. [42]Kembhavi, A. et al. A diagram is worth a dozen images. in 235–251. 10.1007/978-3-319-46493-0_15 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  36. [43]Mathew, M. et al. DocVQA: a dataset for VQA on document images. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.00398 (2020). · arXiv
  37. [44]Mathew, M. et al. InfographicVQA. In 2022 IEEE/CVF Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV) 2582–2591 (IEEE, 2022). 10.1109/WACV51458.2022.00264. · DOI
  38. [47]Banerjee, S. et al. METEOR: an automatic metric for MT evaluation with improved correlation with human judgments. In Proc. ACL Workshop on Intrinsic and Extrinsic Evaluation Measures for Machine Translation and/or Summarization. 65–72 (2005).
  39. [48]Zhang, T. et al. BERTScore: evaluating text generation with BERT. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.09675 (2019). · arXiv
  40. [49]Agrawal, M. et al. Large language models are few-shot clinical information extractors. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2205.12689 (2022). · arXiv
  41. [50]Hu, Y. et al. Improving large language models for clinical named entity recognition via prompt engineering. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.16416 (2023). PMC11339492 38281112 · arXiv
  42. [51]Touvron, H. et al. Llama 2: open foundation and fine-tuned chat models. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2307.09288 (2023). · arXiv
  43. [52]Anil, R. et al. PaLM 2 Technical Report. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.10403 (2023). · arXiv
  44. [53]Ge J. et al. Development of a liver disease-specific large language model chat interface using retrieval augmented generation. 10.1101/2023.11.10.23298364 (2023). PMC11706764 38451962 · DOI
  45. [54]Pawlotsky J-M EASL recommendations on treatment of hepatitis C: final update of the series✰ J. Hepatol. 2020 73 1170 1218 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.08.018 32956768 · DOI
  46. [55]Bhattacharya, D. et al. Hepatitis C guidance 2023 update: american association for the study of liver diseases– infectious diseases society of america recommendations for testing, managing, and treating hepatitis c virus infection. Clin. Infect. Dis.10.1093/cid/ciad319 (2023). 37229695 · DOI
  47. [56]Ghany MG Hepatitis C guidance 2019 update: american association for the study of liver diseases–infectious diseases society of america recommendations for testing, managing, and treating hepatitis C virus infection Hepatology 2020 71 686 721 10.1002/hep.31060 31816111 PMC9710295 · DOI
  48. [57]Giuffrè, M. et al. L. Evaluating ChatGPT in medical contexts: the imperative to guard against hallucinations and partial accuracies. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.10.1016/j.cgh.2023.09.035 (2023). 37863408 · DOI
  49. [58]Giuffrè, M. et al. Scrutinizing ChatGPT Applications in gastroenterology: a call for methodological rigor to define accuracy and preserve privacy. Clin. Gastroenterol. Hepatol.10.1016/j.cgh.2024.01.024 (2024). 38311148 · DOI
  50. [59]Zhang, Y. et al. Siren’s song in the ai ocean: a survey on hallucination in large language models. arxiv https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.01219 (2023). · arXiv

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kresevic, S., Giuffrè, M., Ajcevic, M., Accardo, A., Crocè, L. S., & Shung, D. L.
Affiliations
  • University of Trieste (IT)
  • Yale University (US)
Corresponding author
  • Kresevic, Simone
  • Giuffrè, Mauro
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2024-04-23
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
102-102
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4395050972
Cited by
207
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 70 · 2025: 109 · 2024: 28
FWCI
19.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ArTS Archivio della ricerca di Trieste (University of Trieste https://www.units.it/) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001863)
  • National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (K23DK125718)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
Keywords
large language models, retrieval-augmented generation, clinical decision support systems, chronic hepatitis C, prompt engineering, GPT-4 Turbo, few-shot learning, text similarity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review