PreprintCited by 1Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationClinical practice guidelines implementationMachine Learning in Healthcare

The DOI matches its DataCite record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Clean & Clear: Feasibility of Safe LLM Clinical Guidance

Open access

Abstract

Background: Clinical guidelines are central to safe evidence-based medicine in modern healthcare, providing diagnostic criteria, treatment options and monitoring advice for a wide range of illnesses. LLM-empowered chatbots have shown great promise in Healthcare Q&A tasks, offering the potential to provide quick and accurate responses to medical inquiries. Our main objective was the development and preliminary assessment of an LLM-empowered chatbot software capable of reliably answering clinical guideline questions using University College London Hospital (UCLH) clinical guidelines. Methods: We used the open-weight Llama-3.1-8B LLM to extract relevant information from the UCLH guidelines to answer questions. Our approach highlights the safety and reliability of referencing information over its interpretation and response generation. Seven doctors from the ward assessed the chatbot's performance by comparing its answers to the gold standard. Results: Our chatbot demonstrates promising performance in terms of relevance, with ~73% of its responses rated as very relevant, showcasing a strong understanding of the clinical context. Importantly, our chatbot achieves a recall of 1.00 for extracted guideline lines, substantially minimising the risk of missing critical information. Approximately 78% of responses were rated satisfactory in terms of completeness. A small portion (~14.5%) contained minor unnecessary information, indicating occasional lapses in precision. The chatbot' showed high efficiency, with an average completion time of 10 seconds, compared to 30 seconds for human respondents. Evaluation of clinical reasoning showed that 72% of the chatbot's responses were without flaws. Our chatbot demonstrates significant potential to speed up and improve the process of accessing locally relevant clinical information for healthcare professionals.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2503.20953

Cites

Statistics

Verification

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.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

Cited by 1

Research works printed but not linked: 18

  1. [Arnold et al. 2009] Arnold, F. W.; LaJoie, A. S.; Brock, G. N.; Peyrani, P.; Rello, J.; Men´ endez, R.; Lopardo, G.; Torres, A.; Rossi, P.; Ramirez, J. A.; et al. 2009. Improving outcomes in elderly patients with community-acquired pneumonia by adhering to national guidelines: Communityacquired pneumonia organization international cohort study results. Archives of internal medicine 169(16):1515-1524.
  2. [Coba et al. 2011] Coba, V.; Whitmill, M.; Mooney, R.; Horst, H. M.; Brandt, M.-M.; Digiovine, B.; Mlynarek, M.; McLellan, B.; Boleski, G.; Yang, J.; et al. 2011. Resuscitation bundle compliance in severe sepsis and septic shock: improves survival, is better late than never. Journal of intensive care medicine 26(5):304-313.
  3. [Colakoglu, Solmaz, and F¨ urst 2025] Colakoglu, G.; Solmaz, G.; and F¨ urst, J. 2025. Problem solved? information extraction design space for layout-rich documents using LLMs. arXiv [cs.CL] .
  4. [Curtis et al. 2018] Curtis, H. J.; Dennis, J. M.; Shields, B. M.; Walker, A. J.; Bacon, S.; Hattersley, A. T.; Jones, A. G.; and Goldacre, B. 2018. Time trends and geographical variation in prescribing of drugs for diabetes in england from 1998 to 2017. Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism 20(9):2159-2168.
  5. [Daniels et al. 2024] Daniels, J.; Robinson, E.; Jenkinson, E.; and Carlton, E. 2024. Perceived barriers and opportunities to improve working conditions and staff retention in emergency departments: a qualitative study. Emergency Medicine Journal 41(4):257-265.
  6. [Dean et al. 2001] Dean, N. C.; Silver, M. P.; Bateman, K. A.; James, B.; Hadlock, C. J.; and Hale, D. 2001. Decreased mortality after implementation of a treatment guideline for community-acquired pneumonia. The American journal of medicine 110(6):451-457.
  7. [Dubey et al. 2024] Dubey, A.; Jauhri, A.; Pandey, A.; Kadian, A.; Al-Dahle, A.; Letman, A.; Mathur, A.; Schelten, A.; Yang, A.; Fan, A.; et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783 . · arXiv
  8. [Freedman et al. 2021] Freedman, S.; Golberstein, E.; Huang, T.-Y.; Satin, D. J.; and Smith, L. B. 2021. Docs with their eyes on the clock? the effect of time pressures on primary care productivity. Journal of health economics 77:102442.
  9. [Kann et al. 2020] Kann, B. H.; Johnson, S. B.; Aerts, H. J.; Mak, R. H.; and Nguyen, P. L. 2020. Changes in length and complexity of clinical practice guidelines in oncology, 1996-2019. JAMA Network Open 3(3):e200841-e200841.
  10. [Kresevic et al. 2024] Kresevic, S.; Giuffr` e, M.; Ajcevic, M.; Accardo, A.; Croc` e, L. S.; and Shung, D. L. 2024. Optimization of hepatological clinical guidelines interpretation by large language models: a retrieval augmented generationbased framework. NPJ Digit. Med. 7(1):102.
  11. [Park et al. 2024] Park, Y.-J.; Pillai, A.; Deng, J.; Guo, E.; Gupta, M.; Paget, M.; and Naugler, C. 2024. Assessing the research landscape and clinical utility of large language models: a scoping review. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 24(1):72.
  12. [Qumseya et al. 2021] Qumseya, B.; Goddard, A.; Qumseya, A.; Estores, D.; Draganov, P. V.; and Forsmark, C. 2021. Barriers to clinical practice guideline implementation among physicians: a physician survey. International Journal of General Medicine 7591-7598.
  13. [Rhead et al. 2024] Rhead, R.; Harber-Aschan, L.; Onwumere, J.; Polling, C.; Dorrington, S.; Ehsan, A.; Stevelink, S. A.; Khunti, K.; Mir, G.; Morriss, R.; et al. 2024. Ethnic inequalities among nhs staff in england: workplace experiences during the covid-19 pandemic. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 81(3):113-121.
  14. [Torjesen 2021] Torjesen, I. 2021. Doctors are under more work pressure than during height of covid-19 pandemic in 2020. BMJ: British Medical Journal (Online) 375.
  15. [Tsiga et al. 2013] Tsiga, E.; Panagopoulou, E.; Sevdalis, N.; Montgomery, A.; and Benos, A. 2013. The influence of time pressure on adherence to guidelines in primary care: an experimental study. BMJ open 3(4):e002700.
  16. [Van der Vegt et al. 2020] Van der Vegt, A.; Zuccon, G.; Koopman, B.; and Deacon, A. 2020. How searching under time pressure impacts clinical decision making. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 108(4):564.
  17. [VanWagner et al. 2020] VanWagner, L. B.; Holl, J. L.; Montag, S.; Gregory, D.; Connolly, S.; Kosirog, M.; Campbell, P.; Pine, S.; Daud, A.; Finn, D.; et al. 2020. Blood pressure control according to clinical practice guidelines is associated with decreased mortality and cardiovascular events among liver transplant recipients. American Journal of Transplantation 20(3):797-807.
  18. [Williams et al. 2024] Williams, C. Y.; Miao, B. Y.; Kornblith, A. E.; and Butte, A. J. 2024. Evaluating the use of large language models to provide clinical recommendations in the emergency department. Nature Communications 15(1):8236.

Metadata

Authors
Ive, J., Jozsa, F., Jackson, N., Bondaronek, P., Hill, C. S., & Dobson, R.
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2025
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4415244739
Cited by
1
References
0
Citations by year
2025: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, clinical guidelines, Llama-3.1-8B, clinical reasoning, medical information retrieval

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