Generative Large Language Models in Electronic Health Records for Patient Care Since 2023: A Systematic Review
Xinsong Du,Yifei Wang,Zhengyang Zhou,Ya-Wen Chuang,Richard Yang,Wenyu Zhang,Xinyi Wang,Rui Zhang,Pengyu Hong,David W. Bates,Li Zhou
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.11.24311828
2024-08-19
Abstract:Background: Generative Large language models (LLMs) represent a significant advancement in natural language processing, achieving state-of-the-art performance across various tasks. However, their application in clinical settings using real electronic health records (EHRs) is still rare and presents numerous challenges.
Objective: This study aims to systematically review the use of generative LLMs, and the effectiveness of relevant techniques in patient care-related topics involving EHRs, summarize the challenges faced, and suggest future directions.
Methods: A Boolean search for peer-reviewed articles was conducted on May 19th, 2024 using PubMed and Web of Science to include research articles published since 2023, which was one month after the release of ChatGPT. The search results were deduplicated. Multiple reviewers, including biomedical informaticians, computer scientists, and a physician, screened the publications for eligibility and conducted data extraction. Only studies utilizing generative LLMs to analyze real EHR data were included. We summarized the use of prompt engineering, fine-tuning, multimodal EHR data, and evaluation matrices. Additionally, we identified current challenges in applying LLMs in clinical settings as reported by the included studies and proposed future directions.
Results: The initial search identified 6,328 unique studies, with 76 studies included after eligibility screening. Of these, 67 studies (88.2%) employed zero-shot prompting, five of them reported 100% accuracy on five specific clinical tasks. Nine studies used advanced prompting strategies; four tested these strategies experimentally, finding that prompt engineering improved performance, with one study noting a non-linear relationship between the number of examples in a prompt and performance improvement. Eight studies explored fine-tuning generative LLMs, all reported performance improvements on specific tasks, but three of them noted potential performance degradation after fine-tuning on certain tasks. Only two studies utilized multimodal data, which improved LLM-based decision-making and enabled accurate rare disease diagnosis and prognosis. The studies employed 55 different evaluation metrics for 22 purposes, such as correctness, completeness, and conciseness. Two studies investigated LLM bias, with one detecting no bias and the other finding that male patients received more appropriate clinical decision-making suggestions. Six studies identified hallucinations, such as fabricating patient names in structured thyroid ultrasound reports. Additional challenges included but were not limited to the impersonal tone of LLM consultations, which made patients uncomfortable, and the difficulty patients had in understanding LLM responses.
Conclusion: Our review indicates that few studies have employed advanced computational techniques to enhance LLM performance. The diverse evaluation metrics used highlight the need for standardization. LLMs currently cannot replace physicians due to challenges such as bias, hallucinations, and impersonal responses.