Assessing the Quality of AI-Generated Clinical Notes: A Validated Evaluation of a Large Language Model Scribe
Authors:
Erin Palm,
Astrit Manikantan,
Mark E. Pepin,
Herprit Mahal,
Srikanth Subramanya Belwadi
Abstract:
In medical practices across the United States, physicians have begun implementing generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform the function of scribes in order to reduce the burden of documenting clinical encounters. Despite their widespread use, no established methods exist to gauge the quality of AI scribes. To address this gap, we developed a blinded study comparing the relative per…
▽ More
In medical practices across the United States, physicians have begun implementing generative artificial intelligence (AI) tools to perform the function of scribes in order to reduce the burden of documenting clinical encounters. Despite their widespread use, no established methods exist to gauge the quality of AI scribes. To address this gap, we developed a blinded study comparing the relative performance of large language model (LLM) generated clinical notes with those from field experts based on audio-recorded clinical encounters. Quantitative metrics from the Physician Documentation Quality Instrument (PDQI9) provided a framework to measure note quality, which we adapted to assess relative performance of AI generated notes. Clinical experts spanning 5 medical specialties used the PDQI9 tool to evaluate specialist-drafted Gold notes and LLM authored Ambient notes. Two evaluators from each specialty scored notes drafted from a total of 97 patient visits. We found uniformly high inter rater agreement (RWG greater than 0.7) between evaluators in general medicine, orthopedics, and obstetrics and gynecology, and moderate (RWG 0.5 to 0.7) to high inter rater agreement in pediatrics and cardiology. We found a modest yet significant difference in the overall note quality, wherein Gold notes achieved a score of 4.25 out of 5 and Ambient notes scored 4.20 out of 5 (p = 0.04). Our findings support the use of the PDQI9 instrument as a practical method to gauge the quality of LLM authored notes, as compared to human-authored notes.
△ Less
Submitted 15 May, 2025;
originally announced May 2025.
Towards Leveraging Large Language Models for Automated Medical Q&A Evaluation
Authors:
Jack Krolik,
Herprit Mahal,
Feroz Ahmad,
Gaurav Trivedi,
Bahador Saket
Abstract:
This paper explores the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the evaluation of responses in medical Question and Answer (Q\&A) systems, a crucial form of Natural Language Processing. Traditionally, human evaluation has been indispensable for assessing the quality of these responses. However, manual evaluation by medical professionals is time-consuming and costly. Our study e…
▽ More
This paper explores the potential of using Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate the evaluation of responses in medical Question and Answer (Q\&A) systems, a crucial form of Natural Language Processing. Traditionally, human evaluation has been indispensable for assessing the quality of these responses. However, manual evaluation by medical professionals is time-consuming and costly. Our study examines whether LLMs can reliably replicate human evaluations by using questions derived from patient data, thereby saving valuable time for medical experts. While the findings suggest promising results, further research is needed to address more specific or complex questions that were beyond the scope of this initial investigation.
△ Less
Submitted 3 September, 2024;
originally announced September 2024.
