Evaluating the accuracy of a state-of-the-art large language model for prediction of admissions from the emergency room.

BACKGROUND: Artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs) can play a critical role in emergency room operations by augmenting decision-making about patient admission. However, there are no studies for LLMs using real-world data and scenarios, in comparison to and being informed by traditional supervised machine learning (ML) models. We evaluated the performance of GPT-4 for predicting patient admissions from emergency department (ED) visits. We compared performance to traditional ML models both naively and when informed by few-shot examples and/or numerical probabilities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using electronic health records across 7 NYC hospitals. We trained Bio-Clinical-BERT and XGBoost (XGB) models on unstructured and structured data, respectively, and created an ensemble model reflecting ML performance. We then assessed GPT-4 capabilities in many scenarios: through Zero-shot, Few-shot with and without retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), and with and without ML numerical probabilities. RESULTS: The Ensemble ML model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.88, an area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC) of 0.72 and an accuracy of 82.9%. The naïve GPT-4's performance (0.79 AUC, 0.48 AUPRC, and 77.5% accuracy) showed substantial improvement when given limited, relevant data to learn from (ie, RAG) and underlying ML probabilities (0.87 AUC, 0.71 AUPRC, and 83.1% accuracy). Interestingly, RAG alone boosted performance to near peak levels (0.82 AUC, 0.56 AUPRC, and 81.3% accuracy). CONCLUSIONS: The naïve LLM had limited performance but showed significant improvement in predicting ED admissions when supplemented with real-world examples to learn from, particularly through RAG, and/or numerical probabilities from traditional ML models. Its peak performance, although slightly lower than the pure ML model, is noteworthy given its potential for providing reasoning behind predictions. Further refinement of LLMs with real-world data is necessary for successful integration as decision-support tools in care settings.

Derivation, External Validation and Clinical Implications of a deep learning approach for intracranial pressure estimation using non-cranial waveform measurements.

Importance: Increased intracranial pressure (ICP) is associated with adverse neurological outcomes, but needs invasive monitoring. Objective: Development and validation of an AI approach for detecting increased ICP (aICP) using only non-invasive extracranial physiological waveform data. Design: Retrospective diagnostic study of AI-assisted detection of increased ICP. We developed an AI model using exclusively extracranial waveforms, externally validated it and assessed associations with clinical outcomes. Setting: MIMIC-III Waveform Database (2000-2013), a database derived from patients admitted to an ICU in an academic Boston hospital, was used for development of the aICP model, and to report association with neurologic outcomes. Data from Mount Sinai Hospital (2020-2022) in New York City was used for external validation. Participants: Patients were included if they were older than 18 years, and were monitored with electrocardiograms, arterial blood pressure, respiratory impedance plethysmography and pulse oximetry. Patients who additionally had intracranial pressure monitoring were used for development (N=157) and external validation (N=56). Patients without intracranial monitors were used for association with outcomes (N=1694). Exposures: Extracranial waveforms including electrocardiogram, arterial blood pressure, plethysmography and SpO2. Main Outcomes and Measures: Intracranial pressure > 15 mmHg. Measures were Area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs), sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy at threshold of 0.5. We calculated odds ratios and p-values for phenotype association. Results: The AUROC was 0.91 (95% CI, 0.90-0.91) on testing and 0.80 (95% CI, 0.80-0.80) on external validation. aICP had accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity of 73.8% (95% CI, 72.0%-75.6%), 99.5% (95% CI 99.3%-99.6%), and 76.9% (95% CI, 74.0-79.8%) on external validation. A ten-percentile increment was associated with stroke (OR=2.12; 95% CI, 1.27-3.13), brain malignancy (OR=1.68; 95% CI, 1.09-2.60), subdural hemorrhage (OR=1.66; 95% CI, 1.07-2.57), intracerebral hemorrhage (OR=1.18; 95% CI, 1.07-1.32), and procedures like percutaneous brain biopsy (OR=1.58; 95% CI, 1.15-2.18) and craniotomy (OR = 1.43; 95% CI, 1.12-1.84; P < 0.05 for all). Conclusions and Relevance: aICP provides accurate, non-invasive estimation of increased ICP, and is associated with neurological outcomes and neurosurgical procedures in patients without intracranial monitoring.

Development and Validation of a Policy Tree Approach for Optimizing Intravenous Fluids in Critically Ill Patients with Sepsis and Acute Kidney Injury.

Purpose: Intravenous fluids are mainstay of management of acute kidney injury (AKI) after sepsis but can cause fluid overload. Recent literature shows that restrictive fluid strategy may be beneficial in some patients with AKI, however, identifying these patients is challenging. We aimed to develop and validate a machine learning algorithm to identify patients who would benefit from a restrictive fluid strategy. Methods: We included patients with sepsis who developed AKI within 48 hours of ICU admission and defined restrictive fluid strategy as receiving <500mL fluids within 24 hours after AKI. Our primary outcome was early AKI reversal within 48 hours of AKI onset, and secondary outcomes included sustained AKI reversal and major adverse kidney events (MAKE) at discharge. We used a causal forest, a machine learning algorithm to estimate individual treatment effects and policy tree algorithm to identify patients who would benefit by restrictive fluid strategy. We developed the algorithm in MIMIC-IV and validated it in eICU database. Results: Among 2,091 patients in the external validation cohort, policy tree recommended restrictive fluids for 88.2%. Among these, patients who received restrictive fluids demonstrated significantly higher rate of early AKI reversal (48.2% vs 39.6%, p<0.001), sustained AKI reversal (36.7% vs 27.4%, p<0.001) and lower rates of MAKE by discharge (29.3% vs 35.1%, p=0.019). These results were consistent in adjusted analysis. Conclusion: Policy tree based on causal machine learning can identify septic patients with AKI who benefit from a restrictive fluid strategy. This approach needs to be validated in prospective trials.