Hobson, Jared

Abstract Large Language Models (LLMs) demonstrate strong capabilities in healthcare applications. However, recruiting human evaluators to assess usability and effectiveness becomes challenging in the large-scale LLM-generated outcomes. Existing metrics are often outdated for evaluating LLM-based healthcare technologies. This paper proposes a Research through Evaluation (RtE) approach that can refine metrics and improve assessments of LLM-generated outputs. We deploy RtE in a retrospective comparative study of prostate cancer patient inquiries, comparing responses from human clinical care teams with those generated by a GPT-4-based in-basket bot. Through three rounds of co-evaluations with clinical professionals and an LLM-as-graders study with four LLMs, the RtE method shows that starting with small, iterative evaluations helps human graders adjust metrics to suit their daily practices better. Additionally, in the LLM-as-graders study, LLMs exhibit similar behavior, preferring the in-basket bot's responses over the clinical care team. Our methodology and findings demonstrate that the RtE method can enhance the transparency and robustness of evaluation metrics for LLM-generated content, with the potential to generalize to evaluations in other clinical practices.

Objectives/Goals: Our study’s objective is to evaluate RadOnc-GPT, a GPT-4o powered LLM, in generating responses to in-basket messages related to prostate cancer treatment in the Radiation Oncology department. By integrating it with electronic health record (EHR) systems, the goal is to assess its impact on clinician workload, response quality, and efficiency in healthcare communication. Methods/Study Population: RadOnc-GPT was integrated with patient EHRs from both hospital-wide and radiation-oncology-specific databases. The study examined 158 pre-recorded in-basket message interactions from 90 non-metastatic prostate cancer patients. Quantitative natural language processing analysis and two randomized single-blinded grading studies, involving four clinicians and four nurses, were conducted to evaluate RadOnc-GPT’s response quality in completeness, correctness, clarity, empathy, and estimated editing time. Response times were measured to estimate the time saved for clinicians and nurses. The study population included patient messages across all phases of care (pre-, during, and post-treatment) for those undergoing radiotherapy. Results/Anticipated Results: In the single-blinded grader study, clinician graders evaluated 316 responses (158 from human care teams and 158 from RadOnc-GPT). Results showed RadOnc-GPT outperformed human responses in empathy and clarity, while humans excelled in completeness and correctness. Sentiment analyses using TextBlob and VADER revealed RadOnc-GPT responses had a positive mean score of 0.25, whereas human responses clustered around neutral. VADER analysis indicated a high median score for RadOnc-GPT, nearing 1.0, reflecting predominantly positive sentiment, while human responses displayed a broader sentiment range, indicating sensitivity to context. Clinicians averaged 3.60 minutes (SD 1.44) to respond, compared to 6.39 minutes (SD 4.05) for nurses, highlighting RadOnc-GPT’s efficiency in generating timely responses. Discussion/Significance of Impact: RadOnc-GPT effectively generated responses to individualized patient in-basket messages, comparable to those from radiation oncologists and nurses. While human oversight is still necessary to avoid errors, RadOnc-GPT can speed up response times and reduce pressure on care teams, shifting their role from drafting to reviewing responses.