Cited by 82Machine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Evaluating the accuracy of a state-of-the-art large language model for prediction of admissions from the emergency room

Open access
Glicksberg, Benjamin S, Timsina, Prem, Patel, Dhaval, Sawant, Ashwin, Vaid, Akhil, Raut, Ganesh, Charney, Alexander W, Apakama, Donald +4 more·2024·Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) can play a critical role in emergency room operations by augmenting decision-making about patient admission. However, there are no studies for LLMs using real-world data and scenarios, in comparison to and being informed by traditional supervised machine learning (ML) models. We evaluated the performance of GPT-4 for predicting patient admissions from emergency department (ED) visits. We compared performance to traditional ML models both naively and when informed by few-shot examples and/or numerical probabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health records across 7 NYC hospitals. We trained Bio-Clinical-BERT and XGBoost (XGB) models on unstructured and structured data, respectively, and created an ensemble model reflecting ML performance. We then assessed GPT-4 capabilities in many scenarios: through Zero-shot, Few-shot with and without retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and with and without ML numerical probabilities. RESULTS: The Ensemble ML model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88, an area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) of 0.72 and an accuracy of 82.9%. The naïve GPT-4's performance (0.79 AUC, 0.48 AUPRC, and 77.5% accuracy) showed substantial improvement when given limited, relevant data to learn from (ie, RAG) and underlying ML probabilities (0.87 AUC, 0.71 AUPRC, and 83.1% accuracy). Interestingly, RAG alone boosted performance to near peak levels (0.82 AUC, 0.56 AUPRC, and 81.3% accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: The naïve LLM had limited performance but showed significant improvement in predicting ED admissions when supplemented with real-world examples to learn from, particularly through RAG, and/or numerical probabilities from traditional ML models. Its peak performance, although slightly lower than the pure ML model, is noteworthy given its potential for providing reasoning behind predictions. Further refinement of LLMs with real-world data is necessary for successful integration as decision-support tools in care settings.

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 · 10.1093/jamia/ocae103

Cites

1 of 1 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?

  • Large language models (LLMs) can be integrated to analyze social media data and patient-generated content, providing insights into the social and environmental factors influencing health outcomes across communities and networks.

    “Moreover, large language models (LLMs) can be integrated into this principle to analyze social media data and patient-generated content, providing insights into the social and environmental factors influencing health outcomes across communities and networks [23, 48–52].”

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: 16

  1. Boyle J, Jessup M, Crilly J, et al. Predicting emergency department admissions. Emerg Med J. 2012;29(5):358-365.
  2. Somanchi S, Adjerid I, Gross R. To predict or not to predict: the case of the emergency department. Prod Oper Manag. 2022;31 (2):799-818.
  3. Brink A, Alsma J, van Attekum LA, et al. Predicting inhospital admission at the emergency department: a systematic review. Emerg Med J. 2022;39(3):191-198.
  4. S� anchez-Salmer� on R, G� omez-Urquiza JL, Albend� ın-Garc� ıa L, et al. Machine learning methods applied to triage in emergency services: A systematic review. Int Emerg Nurs. 2022;60:101109.
  5. Thirunavukarasu AJ, Ting DSJ, Elangovan K, et al. Large language models in medicine. Nat Med. 2023;29(8):1930-1940.
  6. Yang X, Chen A, PourNejatian N, et al. A large language model for electronic health records. NPJ Digit Med. 2022;5(1):194.
  7. Jiang LY, Liu XC, Nejatian NP, et al. Health system-scale lan- guage models are all-purpose prediction engines. Nature. 2023;619(7969):357-362.
  8. Peng C, Yang X, Chen A, et al. A study of generative large lan- guage model for medical research and healthcare. NPJ Digit Med. 2023;6(1):210.
  9. Lewis P, Pertz E, Piktus A, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive NLP tasks. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst. 2020;33:9459-9474.
  10. Gao Y, Xiong Y, Xinyu G, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: a survey. http://arxiv.org/abs/2312. 10997, 2024, preprint: not peer reviewed.
  11. Vaid A, Lampert J, Lee J, et al. Generative Large Language Models are autonomous practitioners of evidence-based medicine. http:// arxiv.org/abs/2401.02851, 2024, preprint: not peer reviewed. · arXiv
  12. Eriksen A, Moller S, Ryg J. Use of GPT-4 to diagnose complex clinical cases. NEJM AI. 2023;1(1). https://doi.org/10.1056/ AIp2300031 · DOI · Paper page
  13. Gebrael G, Sahu KK, Chigarira B, et al. Enhancing triage efficiency and accuracy in emergency rooms for patients with metastatic prostate cancer: a retrospective analysis of artificial intelligence- assisted triage using ChatGPT 4.0. Cancers. 2023;15(14):3717.
  14. Ling Y. BioþClinical BERT, BERT Base, and CNN performance comparison for predicting drug-review satisfaction. http://arxiv. org/abs/2308.03782, 2023, preprint: not peer reviewed 1928 Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024, Vol. 31, No. 9
  15. # The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.
  16. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 2024, 31, 1921-1928 https://doi.org/10.1093/jamia/ocae103 Research and Applications · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Glicksberg, B. S., Timsina, P., Patel, D., Sawant, A., Vaid, A., Raut, G., Charney, A. W., Apakama, D., Carr, B. G., Freeman, R., Nadkarni, G. N., & Klang, E.
Affiliations
Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
Corresponding author
  • Nadkarni, Girish N
  • Klang, Eyal
Venue
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
Published
2024-05-21
Volume
31
Issue
9
Pages
1921-1928
ISSN
  • 1067-5027 (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-974X
OpenAlex
W4398183427
Cited by
82
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 18
FWCI
12.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Heart Lung and Blood Institute
  • NIH (5R01HL141841-05)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, GPT-4, emergency department admission, retrieval-augmented generation, few-shot learning, clinical decision support, ensemble learning, XGBoost, electronic health records
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Supervised Machine Learning, Artificial Intelligence, Emergency Service, Hospital, Humans, Natural Language Processing, Patient Admission, Retrospective Studies, Electronic Health Records

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