Automated structured data extraction from intraoperative echocardiography reports using large language models.

IF 9.1 1区 医学 Q1 ANESTHESIOLOGY British journal of anaesthesia Pub Date : 2025-03-03 DOI:10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.028
Emily J MacKay, Shir Goldfinger, Trevor J Chan, Rachel H Grasfield, Vikram J Eswar, Kelly Li, Quy Cao, Alison M Pouch
{"title":"Automated structured data extraction from intraoperative echocardiography reports using large language models.","authors":"Emily J MacKay, Shir Goldfinger, Trevor J Chan, Rachel H Grasfield, Vikram J Eswar, Kelly Li, Quy Cao, Alison M Pouch","doi":"10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Consensus-based large language model (LLM) ensembles might provide an automated solution for extracting structured data from unstructured text in echocardiography reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This cross-sectional study utilised 600 intraoperative transoesophageal reports (100 for prompt engineering; 500 for testing) randomly sampled from 7106 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery at two hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Healthcare System. Three echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction, right ventricular systolic function, and tricuspid regurgitation) were extracted from both the presurgical and postsurgical sections of the reports. LLM ensembles were generated using five open-source LLMs and four voting strategies: (1) unanimous (five out of five in agreement); (2) supermajority (four or more of five in agreement); (3) majority (three or more of five in agreement); and (4) plurality (two or more of five in agreement). Returned LLM ensemble responses were compared with the reference standard dataset to calculate raw accuracy, consensus accuracy, error rate, and yield.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the four LLM ensembles, the unanimous LLM ensemble achieved the highest consensus accuracies (99.4% presurgical; 97.9% postsurgical) and the lowest error rates (0.6% presurgical; 2.1% postsurgical) but had the lowest data extraction yields (81.7% presurgical; 80.5% postsurgical) and the lowest raw accuracies (81.2% presurgical; 78.9% postsurgical). In contrast, the plurality LLM ensemble achieved the highest raw accuracies (96.1% presurgical; 93.7% postsurgical) and the highest data extraction yields (99.4% presurgical; 98.9% postsurgical) but had the lowest consensus accuracies (96.7% presurgical; 94.7% postsurgical) and highest error rates (3.3% presurgical; 5.3% postsurgical).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>A consensus-based LLM ensemble successfully generated structured data from unstructured text contained in intraoperative transoesophageal reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":9250,"journal":{"name":"British journal of anaesthesia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":9.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of anaesthesia","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bja.2025.01.028","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Consensus-based large language model (LLM) ensembles might provide an automated solution for extracting structured data from unstructured text in echocardiography reports.

Methods: This cross-sectional study utilised 600 intraoperative transoesophageal reports (100 for prompt engineering; 500 for testing) randomly sampled from 7106 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery at two hospitals within the University of Pennsylvania Healthcare System. Three echocardiographic parameters (left ventricular ejection fraction, right ventricular systolic function, and tricuspid regurgitation) were extracted from both the presurgical and postsurgical sections of the reports. LLM ensembles were generated using five open-source LLMs and four voting strategies: (1) unanimous (five out of five in agreement); (2) supermajority (four or more of five in agreement); (3) majority (three or more of five in agreement); and (4) plurality (two or more of five in agreement). Returned LLM ensemble responses were compared with the reference standard dataset to calculate raw accuracy, consensus accuracy, error rate, and yield.

Results: Of the four LLM ensembles, the unanimous LLM ensemble achieved the highest consensus accuracies (99.4% presurgical; 97.9% postsurgical) and the lowest error rates (0.6% presurgical; 2.1% postsurgical) but had the lowest data extraction yields (81.7% presurgical; 80.5% postsurgical) and the lowest raw accuracies (81.2% presurgical; 78.9% postsurgical). In contrast, the plurality LLM ensemble achieved the highest raw accuracies (96.1% presurgical; 93.7% postsurgical) and the highest data extraction yields (99.4% presurgical; 98.9% postsurgical) but had the lowest consensus accuracies (96.7% presurgical; 94.7% postsurgical) and highest error rates (3.3% presurgical; 5.3% postsurgical).

Conclusions: A consensus-based LLM ensemble successfully generated structured data from unstructured text contained in intraoperative transoesophageal reports.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
488
审稿时长
27 days
期刊介绍: The British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) is a prestigious publication that covers a wide range of topics in anaesthesia, critical care medicine, pain medicine, and perioperative medicine. It aims to disseminate high-impact original research, spanning fundamental, translational, and clinical sciences, as well as clinical practice, technology, education, and training. Additionally, the journal features review articles, notable case reports, correspondence, and special articles that appeal to a broader audience. The BJA is proudly associated with The Royal College of Anaesthetists, The College of Anaesthesiologists of Ireland, and The Hong Kong College of Anaesthesiologists. This partnership provides members of these esteemed institutions with access to not only the BJA but also its sister publication, BJA Education. It is essential to note that both journals maintain their editorial independence. Overall, the BJA offers a diverse and comprehensive platform for anaesthetists, critical care physicians, pain specialists, and perioperative medicine practitioners to contribute and stay updated with the latest advancements in their respective fields.
期刊最新文献
Automated structured data extraction from intraoperative echocardiography reports using large language models. Regulation of cerebrovascular resistance below the lower limit of cerebral autoregulation during induced hypotension: an observational study. The treat while you wait initiative: a pilot project on turning surgical waiting lists into preparation lists. Evaluation of AI-based nerve segmentation on ultrasound: relevance of standard metrics in the clinical setting. Effect of midazolam co-administered with oxycodone on ventilation: a randomised clinical trial in healthy volunteers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1