Abstract
Aims Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in therapeutic decision-making comparable to medical experts, but these studies have used specially prepared patient data. The aim of this study was to determine whether LLMs can make guideline-adherent treatment decisions based on real-world patient data.
Methods and Results We conducted a retrospective study of 80 patients with severe aortic stenosis who were scheduled for either surgical (SAVR, n=24) or transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR, n=56) by our institutional heart team in 2022. Various LLMs (BioGPT, GPT-3.5, GPT-4 and GPT-4 Turbo, Llama-2, Mistral, and PaLM-2) were queried using either deidentified original medical reports or manually generated case summaries to determine the most guideline-adherent treatment. Agreement with the Heart Team was measured using Cohen’s kappa coefficients, reliability using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), and fairness using frequency bias indices (FBIs) with FBIs >1 indicating bias towards TAVR. When presented with original medical reports, LLMs showed poor performance (kappa: -0.47-0.09, ICC: 0.0-0.91, FBI: 0.95-1.53). The LLMs’ performance improved substantially when case summaries were used as input and additional guideline knowledge was added to the prompt (kappa: -0.02-0.62, ICC: 0.01-0.97, FBI: 0.46-1.24). Qualitative analysis revealed instances of hallucinations in all LLMs tested.
Conclusion Our findings suggest that even advanced LLMs currently make informed treatment decisions only with extensively pre-processed data, not with original patient data. Unreliable responses, bias and hallucinations pose significant health risks and highlight the need for caution in applying LLMs to real-world clinical decision-making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by the German Centre for Cardiovascular Research (DZHK), funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research, and the Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Ethics committee/IRB Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin gave ethical approval for this work
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
