Search for: All records

Sepsis is a dysregulated host response to infection with high mortality and morbidity. Early detection and intervention have been shown to improve patient outcomes, but existing computational models relying on structured electronic health record data often miss contextual information from unstructured clinical notes. This study introduces COMPOSER-LLM, an open-source large language model (LLM) integrated with the COMPOSER model to enhance early sepsis prediction. For high-uncertainty predictions, the LLM extracts additional context to assess sepsis-mimics, improving accuracy. Evaluated on 2500 patient encounters, COMPOSER-LLM achieved a sensitivity of 72.1%, positive predictive value of 52.9%, F-1 score of 61.0%, and 0.0087 false alarms per patient hour, outperforming the standalone COMPOSER model. Prospective validation yielded similar results. Manual chart review found 62% of false positives had bacterial infections, demonstrating potential clinical utility. Our findings suggest that integrating LLMs with traditional models can enhance predictive performance by leveraging unstructured data, representing a significant advance in healthcare analytics. 

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. 

BACKGROUND Timely interventions, such as antibiotics and intravenous fluids, have been associated with reduced mortality in patients with sepsis. Artificial intelligence (AI) models that accurately predict risk of sepsis onset could speed the delivery of these interventions. Although sepsis models generally aim to predict its onset, clinicians might recognize and treat sepsis before the sepsis definition is met. Predictions occurring after sepsis is clinically recognized (i.e., after treatment begins) may be of limited utility. Researchers have not previously investigated the accuracy of sepsis risk predictions that are made before treatment begins. Thus, we evaluate the discriminative performance of AI sepsis predictions made throughout a hospitalization relative to the time of treatment. METHODS We used a large retrospective inpatient cohort from the University of Michigan’s academic medical center (2018–2020) to evaluate the Epic sepsis model (ESM). The ability of the model to predict sepsis, both before sepsis criteria are met and before indications of treatment plans for sepsis, was evaluated in terms of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC). Indicators of a treatment plan were identified through electronic data capture and included the receipt of antibiotics, fluids, blood culture, and/or lactate measurement. The definition of sepsis was a composite of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s surveillance criteria and the severe sepsis and septic shock management bundle definition. RESULTS The study included 77,582 hospitalizations. Sepsis occurred in 3766 hospitalizations (4.9%). ESM achieved an AUROC of 0.62 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.61 to 0.63) when including predictions before sepsis criteria were met and in some cases, after clinical recognition. When excluding predictions after clinical recognition, the AUROC dropped to 0.47 (95% CI, 0.46 to 0.48). CONCLUSIONS We evaluate a sepsis risk prediction model to measure its ability to predict sepsis before clinical recognition. Our work has important implications for future work in model development and evaluation, with the goal of maximizing the clinical utility of these models. (Funded by Cisco Research and others.)