Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Peer Review of “Assessing the Limitations of Large Language Models in Clinical Practice Guideline–Concordant Treatment Decision-Making on Real-World Data: Retrospective Study”
1
Zitationen
1
Autoren
2025
Jahr
Abstract
for "Assessing the Limitations of Large Language Models in Clinical Practice Guideline-Concordant Treatment Decision-Making on Real-World Data: Retrospective Study." Round 1 ReviewThe authors of this paper [1] set out to determine whether modern large language models (LLMs) can make treatment decisions for severe aortic stenosis based on uncurated, free-text clinical data in routine practice.This question addresses a significant gap in the literature: while earlier work demonstrated that LLMs could agree with expert tumor boards or heart teams when provided with highly structured or preprocessed information, the realities of clinical documentation-discharge summaries, imaging reports, and free-text notes-remain unstructured and noisy.It seems that even top LLMs fail to deliver reliable, unbiased treatment recommendations from raw clinical text.They perform well only with expert-crafted summaries and embedded guidelines, highlighting that data representation (and prompt engineering) is key.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
Applied logistic regression
1990 · 35.647 Zit.
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects
1983 · 30.463 Zit.
SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models
2004 · 17.014 Zit.
A Proportional Hazards Model for the Subdistribution of a Competing Risk
1999 · 13.386 Zit.
Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural Equation Models
1982 · 12.563 Zit.