Faculty Bibliography

Ensuring reliability of Large Language Models (LLMs) in clinical tasks is crucial. Our study assesses two state-of-the-art LLMs (ChatGPT and LlaMA-2) for extracting clinical information, focusing on cognitive tests like MMSE and CDR. Our data consisted of 135,307 clinical notes (Jan 12th, 2010 to May 24th, 2023) mentioning MMSE, CDR, or MoCA. After applying inclusion criteria 34,465 notes remained, of which 765 underwent ChatGPT (GPT-4) and LlaMA-2, and 22 experts reviewed the responses. ChatGPT successfully extracted MMSE and CDR instances with dates from 742 notes. We used 20 notes for fine-tuning and training the reviewers. The remaining 722 were assigned to reviewers, with 309 each assigned to two reviewers simultaneously. Inter-rater-agreement (Fleiss' Kappa), precision, recall, true/false negative rates, and accuracy were calculated. Our study follows TRIPOD reporting guidelines for model validation. For MMSE information extraction, ChatGPT (vs. LlaMA-2) achieved accuracy of 83% (vs. 66.4%), sensitivity of 89.7% (vs. 69.9%), true-negative rates of 96% (vs 60.0%), and precision of 82.7% (vs 62.2%). For CDR the results were lower overall, with accuracy of 87.1% (vs. 74.5%), sensitivity of 84.3% (vs. 39.7%), true-negative rates of 99.8% (98.4%), and precision of 48.3% (vs. 16.1%). We qualitatively evaluated the MMSE errors of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 on double-reviewed notes. LlaMA-2 errors included 27 cases of total hallucination, 19 cases of reporting other scores instead of MMSE, 25 missed scores, and 23 cases of reporting only the wrong date. In comparison, ChatGPT's errors included only 3 cases of total hallucination, 17 cases of wrong test reported instead of MMSE, and 19 cases of reporting a wrong date. In this diagnostic/prognostic study of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 for extracting cognitive exam dates and scores from clinical notes, ChatGPT exhibited high accuracy, with better performance compared to LlaMA-2. The use of LLMs could benefit dementia research and clinical care, by identifying eligible patients for treatments initialization or clinical trial enrollments. Rigorous evaluation of LLMs is crucial to understanding their capabilities and limitations.

OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:Accelerating demand for patient messaging has impacted the practice of many providers. Messages are not recommended for urgent medical issues, but some do require rapid attention. This presents an opportunity for artificial intelligence (AI) methods to prioritize review of messages. Our study aimed to highlight some patient portal messages for prioritized review using a custom AI system integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). MATERIALS AND METHODS/UNASSIGNED:We developed a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT)-based large language model using 40 132 patient-sent messages to identify patterns involving high acuity topics that warrant an immediate callback. The model was then implemented into 2 shared pools of patient messages managed by dozens of registered nurses. A primary outcome, such as the time before messages were read, was evaluated with a difference-in-difference methodology. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED: = 396 466), an improvement exceeding the trend was observed in the time high-scoring messages sit unread (21 minutes, 63 vs 42 for messages sent outside business hours). DISCUSSION/UNASSIGNED:Our work shows great promise in improving care when AI is aligned with human workflow. Future work involves audience expansion, aiding users with suggested actions, and drafting responses. CONCLUSION/UNASSIGNED:Many patients utilize patient portal messages, and while most messages are routine, a small fraction describe alarming symptoms. Our AI-based workflow shortens the turnaround time to get a trained clinician to review these messages to provide safer, higher-quality care.

OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the proficiency of a HIPAA-compliant version of GPT-4 in identifying actionable, incidental findings from unstructured radiology reports of Emergency Department patients. To assess appropriateness of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated, patient-facing summaries of these findings. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Radiology reports extracted from the electronic health record of a large academic medical center were manually reviewed to identify non-emergent, incidental findings with high likelihood of requiring follow-up, further sub-stratified as "definitely actionable" (DA) or "possibly actionable-clinical correlation" (PA-CC). Instruction prompts to GPT-4 were developed and iteratively optimized using a validation set of 50 reports. The optimized prompt was then applied to a test set of 430 unseen reports. GPT-4 performance was primarily graded on accuracy identifying either DA or PA-CC findings, then secondarily for DA findings alone. Outputs were reviewed for hallucinations. AI-generated patient-facing summaries were assessed for appropriateness via Likert scale. RESULTS:For the primary outcome (DA or PA-CC), GPT-4 achieved 99.3% recall, 73.6% precision, and 84.5% F-1. For the secondary outcome (DA only), GPT-4 demonstrated 95.2% recall, 77.3% precision, and 85.3% F-1. No findings were "hallucinated" outright. However, 2.8% of cases included generated text about recommendations that were inferred without specific reference. The majority of True Positive AI-generated summaries required no or minor revision. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:GPT-4 demonstrates proficiency in detecting actionable, incidental findings after refined instruction prompting. AI-generated patient instructions were most often appropriate, but rarely included inferred recommendations. While this technology shows promise to augment diagnostics, active clinician oversight via "human-in-the-loop" workflows remains critical for clinical implementation.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Virtual patient-physician communications have increased since 2020 and negatively impacted primary care physician (PCP) well-being. Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) drafts of patient messages could potentially reduce health care professional (HCP) workload and improve communication quality, but only if the drafts are considered useful. OBJECTIVES/UNASSIGNED:To assess PCPs' perceptions of GenAI drafts and to examine linguistic characteristics associated with equity and perceived empathy. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS/UNASSIGNED:This cross-sectional quality improvement study tested the hypothesis that PCPs' ratings of GenAI drafts (created using the electronic health record [EHR] standard prompts) would be equivalent to HCP-generated responses on 3 dimensions. The study was conducted at NYU Langone Health using private patient-HCP communications at 3 internal medicine practices piloting GenAI. EXPOSURES/UNASSIGNED:Randomly assigned patient messages coupled with either an HCP message or the draft GenAI response. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES/UNASSIGNED:PCPs rated responses' information content quality (eg, relevance), using a Likert scale, communication quality (eg, verbosity), using a Likert scale, and whether they would use the draft or start anew (usable vs unusable). Branching logic further probed for empathy, personalization, and professionalism of responses. Computational linguistics methods assessed content differences in HCP vs GenAI responses, focusing on equity and empathy. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:A total of 16 PCPs (8 [50.0%] female) reviewed 344 messages (175 GenAI drafted; 169 HCP drafted). Both GenAI and HCP responses were rated favorably. GenAI responses were rated higher for communication style than HCP responses (mean [SD], 3.70 [1.15] vs 3.38 [1.20]; P = .01, U = 12 568.5) but were similar to HCPs on information content (mean [SD], 3.53 [1.26] vs 3.41 [1.27]; P = .37; U = 13 981.0) and usable draft proportion (mean [SD], 0.69 [0.48] vs 0.65 [0.47], P = .49, t = -0.6842). Usable GenAI responses were considered more empathetic than usable HCP responses (32 of 86 [37.2%] vs 13 of 79 [16.5%]; difference, 125.5%), possibly attributable to more subjective (mean [SD], 0.54 [0.16] vs 0.31 [0.23]; P < .001; difference, 74.2%) and positive (mean [SD] polarity, 0.21 [0.14] vs 0.13 [0.25]; P = .02; difference, 61.5%) language; they were also numerically longer (mean [SD] word count, 90.5 [32.0] vs 65.4 [62.6]; difference, 38.4%), but the difference was not statistically significant (P = .07) and more linguistically complex (mean [SD] score, 125.2 [47.8] vs 95.4 [58.8]; P = .002; difference, 31.2%). CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In this cross-sectional study of PCP perceptions of an EHR-integrated GenAI chatbot, GenAI was found to communicate information better and with more empathy than HCPs, highlighting its potential to enhance patient-HCP communication. However, GenAI drafts were less readable than HCPs', a significant concern for patients with low health or English literacy.

BACKGROUND:Healthcare crowdsourcing events (e.g. hackathons) facilitate interdisciplinary collaboration and encourage innovation. Peer-reviewed research has not yet considered a healthcare crowdsourcing event focusing on generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), which generates text in response to detailed prompts and has vast potential for improving the efficiency of healthcare organizations. Our event, the New York University Langone Health (NYULH) Prompt-a-thon, primarily sought to inspire and build AI fluency within our diverse NYULH community, and foster collaboration and innovation. Secondarily, we sought to analyze how participants' experience was influenced by their prior GenAI exposure and whether they received sample prompts during the workshop. METHODS:Executing the event required the assembly of an expert planning committee, who recruited diverse participants, anticipated technological challenges, and prepared the event. The event was composed of didactics and workshop sessions, which educated and allowed participants to experiment with using GenAI on real healthcare data. Participants were given novel "project cards" associated with each dataset that illuminated the tasks GenAI could perform and, for a random set of teams, sample prompts to help them achieve each task (the public repository of project cards can be found at https://github.com/smallw03/NYULH-Generative-AI-Prompt-a-thon-Project-Cards). Afterwards, participants were asked to fill out a survey with 7-point Likert-style questions. RESULTS:Our event was successful in educating and inspiring hundreds of enthusiastic in-person and virtual participants across our organization on the responsible use of GenAI in a low-cost and technologically feasible manner. All participants responded positively, on average, to each of the survey questions (e.g., confidence in their ability to use and trust GenAI). Critically, participants reported a self-perceived increase in their likelihood of using and promoting colleagues' use of GenAI for their daily work. No significant differences were seen in the surveys of those who received sample prompts with their project task descriptions. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The first healthcare Prompt-a-thon was an overwhelming success, with minimal technological failures, positive responses from diverse participants and staff, and evidence of post-event engagement. These findings will be integral to planning future events at our institution, and to others looking to engage their workforce in utilizing GenAI.

IMPORTANCE/UNASSIGNED:Large language models (LLMs) are crucial for medical tasks. Ensuring their reliability is vital to avoid false results. Our study assesses two state-of-the-art LLMs (ChatGPT and LlaMA-2) for extracting clinical information, focusing on cognitive tests like MMSE and CDR. OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:Evaluate ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 performance in extracting MMSE and CDR scores, including their associated dates. METHODS/UNASSIGNED:Our data consisted of 135,307 clinical notes (Jan 12th, 2010 to May 24th, 2023) mentioning MMSE, CDR, or MoCA. After applying inclusion criteria 34,465 notes remained, of which 765 underwent ChatGPT (GPT-4) and LlaMA-2, and 22 experts reviewed the responses. ChatGPT successfully extracted MMSE and CDR instances with dates from 742 notes. We used 20 notes for fine-tuning and training the reviewers. The remaining 722 were assigned to reviewers, with 309 each assigned to two reviewers simultaneously. Inter-rater-agreement (Fleiss' Kappa), precision, recall, true/false negative rates, and accuracy were calculated. Our study follows TRIPOD reporting guidelines for model validation. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:For MMSE information extraction, ChatGPT (vs. LlaMA-2) achieved accuracy of 83% (vs. 66.4%), sensitivity of 89.7% (vs. 69.9%), true-negative rates of 96% (vs 60.0%), and precision of 82.7% (vs 62.2%). For CDR the results were lower overall, with accuracy of 87.1% (vs. 74.5%), sensitivity of 84.3% (vs. 39.7%), true-negative rates of 99.8% (98.4%), and precision of 48.3% (vs. 16.1%). We qualitatively evaluated the MMSE errors of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 on double-reviewed notes. LlaMA-2 errors included 27 cases of total hallucination, 19 cases of reporting other scores instead of MMSE, 25 missed scores, and 23 cases of reporting only the wrong date. In comparison, ChatGPT's errors included only 3 cases of total hallucination, 17 cases of wrong test reported instead of MMSE, and 19 cases of reporting a wrong date. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:In this diagnostic/prognostic study of ChatGPT and LlaMA-2 for extracting cognitive exam dates and scores from clinical notes, ChatGPT exhibited high accuracy, with better performance compared to LlaMA-2. The use of LLMs could benefit dementia research and clinical care, by identifying eligible patients for treatments initialization or clinical trial enrollments. Rigorous evaluation of LLMs is crucial to understanding their capabilities and limitations.

BACKGROUND:infection (CDI) in patients requiring concomitant systemic antibiotics. OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:To evaluate prescribing practices of vancomycin for CDI in patients that required concurrent systemic antibiotics and to determine whether a prolonged duration of vancomycin (>14 days), compared to a standard duration (10-14 days), decreased CDI recurrence. METHODS:(VRE). RESULTS:= .083) were not significantly different between groups. Discontinuation of vancomycin prior to completion of antibiotics was an independent predictor of 8-week recurrence on multivariable logistic regression (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.3-18.1). CONCLUSIONS:Oral vancomycin prescribing relative to the systemic antibiotic end date may affect CDI recurrence to a greater extent than total vancomycin duration alone. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.

OBJECTIVE/UNASSIGNED:To evaluate whether an antimicrobial stewardship bundle (ASB) can safely empower frontline providers in the treatment of gram-negative bloodstream infections (GN-BSI). INTERVENTION AND METHOD/UNASSIGNED:From March 2021 to February 2022, we implemented an ASB intervention for GN-BSI in the electronic medical record (EMR) to guide clinicians at the point of care to optimize their own antibiotic decision-making. We conducted a before-and-after quasi-experimental pre-bundle (preBG) and post-bundle (postBG) study evaluating a composite of in-hospital mortality, infection-related readmission, GN-BSI recurrence, and bundle-related outcomes. SETTING/UNASSIGNED:New York University Langone Health (NYULH), Tisch/Kimmel (T/K) and Brooklyn (BK) campuses, in New York City, New York. PATIENTS/UNASSIGNED:Out of 1097 patients screened, the study included 225 adults aged ≥18 years (101 preBG vs 124 postBG) admitted with at least one positive blood culture with a monomicrobial gram-negative organism. RESULTS/UNASSIGNED:= 0.043. CONCLUSIONS/UNASSIGNED:GN-BSI bundle worked as a nudge-based strategy to guide providers in VAN DC and increased de-escalation to aminopenicillin-based antibiotics without negatively impacting patient outcomes.

Pathology reports are considered the gold standard in medical research due to their comprehensive and accurate diagnostic information. Natural language processing (NLP) techniques have been developed to automate information extraction from pathology reports. However, existing studies suffer from two significant limitations. First, they typically frame their tasks as report classification, which restricts the granularity of extracted information. Second, they often fail to generalize to unseen reports due to variations in language, negation, and human error. To overcome these challenges, we propose a BERT (bidirectional encoder representations from transformers) named entity recognition (NER) system to extract key diagnostic elements from pathology reports. We also introduce four data augmentation methods to improve the robustness of our model. Trained and evaluated on 1438 annotated breast pathology reports, acquired from a large medical center in the United States, our BERT model trained with data augmentation achieves an entity F1-score of 0.916 on an internal test set, surpassing the BERT baseline (0.843). We further assessed the model's generalizability using an external validation dataset from the United Arab Emirates, where our model maintained satisfactory performance (F1-score 0.860). Our findings demonstrate that our NER systems can effectively extract fine-grained information from widely diverse medical reports, offering the potential for large-scale information extraction in a wide range of medical and AI research. We publish our code at https://github.com/nyukat/pathology_extraction.