PreprintCited by 892Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareTopic Modeling

Clinical Text Summarization: Adapting Large Language Models Can Outperform Human Experts

Open access
Veen, Dave Van, Uden, Cara Van, Blankemeier, Louis, Delbrouck, Jean-Benoit, Aali, Asad, Bluethgen, Christian, Pareek, Anuj, Polacin, Malgorzata +11 more·2023·Nature Medicine

Preprint — published as 10.1038/s41591-024-02855-5 · Paper page

Abstract

Sifting through vast textual data and summarizing key information from electronic health records (EHR) imposes a substantial burden on how clinicians allocate their time. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown immense promise in natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their efficacy on a diverse range of clinical summarization tasks has not yet been rigorously demonstrated. In this work, we apply domain adaptation methods to eight LLMs, spanning six datasets and four distinct clinical summarization tasks: radiology reports, patient questions, progress notes, and doctor-patient dialogue. Our thorough quantitative assessment reveals trade-offs between models and adaptation methods in addition to instances where recent advances in LLMs may not improve results. Further, in a clinical reader study with ten physicians, we show that summaries from our best-adapted LLMs are preferable to human summaries in terms of completeness and correctness. Our ensuing qualitative analysis highlights challenges faced by both LLMs and human experts. Lastly, we correlate traditional quantitative NLP metrics with reader study scores to enhance our understanding of how these metrics align with physician preferences. Our research marks the first evidence of LLMs outperforming human experts in clinical text summarization across multiple tasks. This implies that integrating LLMs into clinical workflows could alleviate documentation burden, empowering clinicians to focus more on personalized patient care and the inherently human aspects of medicine.

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 · 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3483777/v1

Cites

93 of 93 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?

  • Domain-specific LLMs perform well in clinical text summarization, note generation, and medical question answering.

    “Domain-specific LLMs, fine-tuned on medical corpora or using knowledge graph embeddings, perform well in clinical text summarization [10, 11], note generation [12, 13], and medical question answering [14].”
  • Most prior research in this field speculates on high-level concerns such as inaccuracy and real-world impacts, but rarely articulates concrete criteria for when and why LLMs should or should not provide professional advice to users.

    “Most prior research in this field speculates on high-level concerns such as inaccuracy and real-world impacts [43, 44, 54, 86, 93]. However, these studies rarely articulate concrete criteria for when and why LLMs should or should not provide professional advice to users.”

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: 5

  1. [15]Chung H. W., Hou L., Longpre S., Zoph B., Tay Y., Fedus W., Li E., Wang X., Dehghani M., Brahma S., Scaling instruction-finetuned language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.11416 (2022). · arXiv
  2. [18]Demner-Fushman D., Ananiadou S. & Cohen K. B. The 22nd Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing and BioNLP Shared Tasks in The 22nd Workshop on Biomedical Natural Language Processing and BioNLP Shared Tasks (2023).
  3. [27]Gao Y., Miller T., Afshar M. & Dligach D. BioNLP Workshop 2023 Shared Task 1A: Problem List Summarization in Proceedings of the 22nd Workshop on Biomedical Language Processing (2023).
  4. [61]Soldaini L. & Goharian N. Quickumls: a fast, unsupervised approach for medical concept extraction in MedIR workshop, sigir (2016), 1– 4.
  5. [65]Tay Y., Dehghani M., Tran V. Q., Garcia X., Wei J., Wang X., Chung H. W., Bahri D., Schuster T., Zheng S., Ul2: Unifying language learning paradigms in The Eleventh International Conference on Learning Representations (2022).

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Veen, D. V., Uden, C. V., Blankemeier, L., Delbrouck, J.-B., Aali, A., Bluethgen, C., Pareek, A., Polacin, M., Reis, E. P., Seehofnerova, A., Rohatgi, N., Hosamani, P., Collins, W., Ahuja, N., Langlotz, C., Hom, J., Gatidis, S., Pauly, J., & Chaudhari, A.
Affiliations
  • Stanford University (US)
  • The University of Texas at Austin (US)
  • University Hospital Zurich
  • Copenhagen University Hospital (DK)
  • University of Zurich (CH)
  • Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein (BR)
  • Stanford University
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Veen, Dave Van
Venue
Nature Medicine
Published
2023-10-30
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
1134-1142
ISSN
1078-8956 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4392193048
Cited by
892
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 342 · 2025: 404 · 2024: 144 · 2023: 2
FWCI
81.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • Research Square (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (acceptedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (cc-by)
  • Zurich Open Repository and Archive (University of Zurich)
Funders
  • Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (R01 AR077604, R01EB002524, P41 EB027060, R01 AR079431)
  • Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
  • National Institutes of Health (75N92020C00021, 75N92020C00008)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R18 HS026886)
  • National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (75N92020C00008, 75N92020C00021, R01HL155410, R01HL169345, R01HL167974, R01HL157235)
  • National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (R01AR077604, R01AR079431)
  • National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (75N92020C00021, EB 002524, 75N92020C00008, P41EB027060, R01EB002524)
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, clinical text summarization, LLM adaptation, electronic health records, radiology reports, progress notes, doctor-patient dialogue, patient questions, summary quality, safety analysis, clinical documentation burden

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