Search for: All records

ImportanceLarge language models (LLMs) can assist in various health care activities, but current evaluation approaches may not adequately identify the most useful application areas. ObjectiveTo summarize existing evaluations of LLMs in health care in terms of 5 components: (1) evaluation data type, (2) health care task, (3) natural language processing (NLP) and natural language understanding (NLU) tasks, (4) dimension of evaluation, and (5) medical specialty. Data SourcesA systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed for studies published between January 1, 2022, and February 19, 2024. Study SelectionStudies evaluating 1 or more LLMs in health care. Data Extraction and SynthesisThree independent reviewers categorized studies via keyword searches based on the data used, the health care tasks, the NLP and NLU tasks, the dimensions of evaluation, and the medical specialty. ResultsOf 519 studies reviewed, published between January 1, 2022, and February 19, 2024, only 5% used real patient care data for LLM evaluation. The most common health care tasks were assessing medical knowledge such as answering medical licensing examination questions (44.5%) and making diagnoses (19.5%). Administrative tasks such as assigning billing codes (0.2%) and writing prescriptions (0.2%) were less studied. For NLP and NLU tasks, most studies focused on question answering (84.2%), while tasks such as summarization (8.9%) and conversational dialogue (3.3%) were infrequent. Almost all studies (95.4%) used accuracy as the primary dimension of evaluation; fairness, bias, and toxicity (15.8%), deployment considerations (4.6%), and calibration and uncertainty (1.2%) were infrequently measured. Finally, in terms of medical specialty area, most studies were in generic health care applications (25.6%), internal medicine (16.4%), surgery (11.4%), and ophthalmology (6.9%), with nuclear medicine (0.6%), physical medicine (0.4%), and medical genetics (0.2%) being the least represented. Conclusions and RelevanceExisting evaluations of LLMs mostly focus on accuracy of question answering for medical examinations, without consideration of real patient care data. Dimensions such as fairness, bias, and toxicity and deployment considerations received limited attention. Future evaluations should adopt standardized applications and metrics, use clinical data, and broaden focus to include a wider range of tasks and specialties. 

Abstract Although individual psychotherapy is generally effective for a range of mental health conditions, little is known about the moment-to-moment language use of effective therapists. Increased access to computational power, coupled with a rise in computer-mediated communication (telehealth), makes feasible the large-scale analyses of language use during psychotherapy. Transparent methodological approaches are lacking, however. Here we present novel methods to increase the efficiency of efforts to examine language use in psychotherapy. We evaluate three important aspects of therapist language use - timing, responsiveness, and consistency - across five clinically relevant language domains: pronouns, time orientation, emotional polarity, therapist tactics, and paralinguistic style. We find therapist language is dynamic within sessions, responds to patient language, and relates to patient symptom diagnosis but not symptom severity. Our results demonstrate that analyzing therapist language at scale is feasible and may help answer longstanding questions about specific behaviors of effective therapists. 

ObjectiveTo assess the uptake of second line antihyperglycaemic drugs among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who are receiving metformin. DesignFederated pharmacoepidemiological evaluation in LEGEND-T2DM. Setting10 US and seven non-US electronic health record and administrative claims databases in the Observational Health Data Sciences and Informatics network in eight countries from 2011 to the end of 2021. Participants4.8 million patients (=18 years) across US and non-US based databases with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had received metformin monotherapy and had initiated second line treatments. ExposureThe exposure used to evaluate each database was calendar year trends, with the years in the study that were specific to each cohort. Main outcomes measuresThe outcome was the incidence of second line antihyperglycaemic drug use (ie, glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors, dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and sulfonylureas) among individuals who were already receiving treatment with metformin. The relative drug class level uptake across cardiovascular risk groups was also evaluated. Results4.6 million patients were identified in US databases, 61 382 from Spain, 32 442 from Germany, 25 173 from the UK, 13 270 from France, 5580 from Scotland, 4614 from Hong Kong, and 2322 from Australia. During 2011-21, the combined proportional initiation of the cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs (glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors) increased across all data sources, with the combined initiation of these drugs as second line drugs in 2021 ranging from 35.2% to 68.2% in the US databases, 15.4% in France, 34.7% in Spain, 50.1% in Germany, and 54.8% in Scotland. From 2016 to 2021, in some US and non-US databases, uptake of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibitors increased more significantly among populations with no cardiovascular disease compared with patients with established cardiovascular disease. No data source provided evidence of a greater increase in the uptake of these two drug classes in populations with cardiovascular disease compared with no cardiovascular disease. ConclusionsDespite the increase in overall uptake of cardioprotective antihyperglycaemic drugs as second line treatments for type 2 diabetes mellitus, their uptake was lower in patients with cardiovascular disease than in people with no cardiovascular disease over the past decade. A strategy is needed to ensure that medication use is concordant with guideline recommendations to improve outcomes of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.