Abstract:Purpose: Identifying potential participants for clinical trials using traditional manual screening methods is time-consuming and expensive. Structured data in electronic health records (EHR) are often insufficient to capture trial inclusion and exclusion criteria adequately. Large language models (LLMs) offer the potential for improved participant screening by searching text notes in the EHR, but optimal deployment strategies remain unclear. Methods: We evaluated the performance of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 in screening a cohort of 74 patients (35 eligible, 39 ineligible) using EHR data, including progress notes, pathology reports, and imaging reports, for a phase 2 clinical trial in patients with head and neck cancer. Fourteen trial criteria were evaluated, including stage, histology, prior treatments, underlying conditions, functional status, etc. Manually annotated data served as the ground truth. We tested three prompting approaches (Structured Output (SO), Chain of Thought (CoT), and Self-Discover (SD)). SO and CoT were further tested using expert and LLM guidance (EG and LLM-G, respectively). Prompts were developed and refined using 10 patients from each cohort and then assessed on the remaining 54 patients. Each approach was assessed for accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, and micro F1 score. We explored two eligibility predictions: strict eligibility required meeting all criteria, while proportional eligibility used the proportion of criteria met. Screening time and cost were measured, and a failure analysis identified common misclassification issues. Results: Fifty-four patients were evaluated (25 enrolled, 29 not enrolled). At the criterion level, GPT-3.5 showed a median accuracy of 0.761 (range: 0.554-0.910), with the Structured Out- put + EG approach performing best. GPT-4 demonstrated a median accuracy of 0.838 (range: 0.758-0.886), with the Self-Discover approach achieving the highest Youden Index of 0.729. For strict patient-level eligibility, GPT-3.5's Structured Output + EG approach reached an accuracy of 0.611, while GPT-4's CoT + EG achieved 0.65. Proportional eligibility performed better over- all, with GPT-4's CoT + LLM-G approach having the highest AUC (0.82) and Youden Index (0.60). Screening times ranged from 1.4 to 3 minutes per patient for GPT-3.5 and 7.9 to 12.4 minutes for GPT-4, with costs of $0.02-$0.03 for GPT-3.5 and $0.15-$0.27 for GPT-4. Conclusion: LLMs can be used to identify specific clinical trial criteria but had difficulties identifying patients who met all criteria. Instead, using the proportion of criteria met to flag candidates for manual review maybe a more practical approach. LLM performance varies by prompt, with GPT-4 generally outperforming GPT-3.5, but at higher costs and longer processing times. LLMs should complement, not replace, manual chart reviews for matching patients to clinical trials.

Benchmarking Large Language Models for Extraction of International Classification of Diseases Codes from Clinical Documentation

Assessing Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model Performance in Emergency Department ICD-10-CM Coding Compared to Human Coders

Critical Care Studies Using Large Language Models Based on Electronic Healthcare Records: A Technical Note

Evaluation of General Large Language Models in Contextually Assessing Semantic Concepts Extracted from Adult Critical Care Electronic Health Record Notes

Evaluating Large Language Models in Extracting Cognitive Exam Dates and Scores

Evaluating Enhanced LLMs for Precise Mental Health Diagnosis from Clinical Notes

How well it works: Benchmarking performance of GPT models on medical natural language processing tasks

On the limitations of large language models in clinical diagnosis

Automated Translation of Chronic Disease Diagnosis Codes using the ChatGPT Large Language Model

A comparison of the diagnostic ability of large language models in challenging clinical cases

Large language models are good medical coders, if provided with tools

Systematic Review of Large Language Models for Patient Care: Current Applications and Challenges

The potential and pitfalls of using a large language model such as ChatGPT, GPT-4, or LLaMA as a clinical assistant.

Large language models for accurate disease detection in electronic health records

Large Language Model Augmented Clinical Trial Screening

Can Large Language Models abstract Medical Coded Language?

Evaluating the use of large language models to provide clinical recommendations in the Emergency Department

Evaluation of large language model performance on the Biomedical Language Understanding and Reasoning Benchmark

Performance of Publicly Available Large Language Models on Internal Medicine Board-style Questions

Coding historical causes of death data with Large Language Models

Large language models for extracting histopathologic diagnoses from electronic health records