Assessing the Usability of GutGPT: A Simulation Study of an AI Clinical Decision Support System for Gastrointestinal Bleeding Risk
Authors:
Colleen Chan,
Kisung You,
Sunny Chung,
Mauro Giuffrè,
Theo Saarinen,
Niroop Rajashekar,
Yuan Pu,
Yeo Eun Shin,
Loren Laine,
Ambrose Wong,
René Kizilcec,
Jasjeet Sekhon,
Dennis Shung
Abstract:
Applications of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have potential to enhance clinical decision support through conversational interfaces. However, challenges of human-algorithmic interaction and clinician trust are poorly understood. GutGPT, a LLM for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk prediction and management guidance, was deployed in clinical simulation scenarios alongside the electroni…
▽ More
Applications of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT have potential to enhance clinical decision support through conversational interfaces. However, challenges of human-algorithmic interaction and clinician trust are poorly understood. GutGPT, a LLM for gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding risk prediction and management guidance, was deployed in clinical simulation scenarios alongside the electronic health record (EHR) with emergency medicine physicians, internal medicine physicians, and medical students to evaluate its effect on physician acceptance and trust in AI clinical decision support systems (AI-CDSS). GutGPT provides risk predictions from a validated machine learning model and evidence-based answers by querying extracted clinical guidelines. Participants were randomized to GutGPT and an interactive dashboard, or the interactive dashboard and a search engine. Surveys and educational assessments taken before and after measured technology acceptance and content mastery. Preliminary results showed mixed effects on acceptance after using GutGPT compared to the dashboard or search engine but appeared to improve content mastery based on simulation performance. Overall, this study demonstrates LLMs like GutGPT could enhance effective AI-CDSS if implemented optimally and paired with interactive interfaces.
△ Less
Submitted 6 December, 2023;
originally announced December 2023.
Auditing for Human Expertise
Authors:
Rohan Alur,
Loren Laine,
Darrick K. Li,
Manish Raghavan,
Devavrat Shah,
Dennis Shung
Abstract:
High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human exper…
▽ More
High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human experts add value which could not be captured by an algorithmic predictor. We develop a statistical framework under which we can pose this question as a natural hypothesis test. Indeed, as our framework highlights, detecting human expertise is more subtle than simply comparing the accuracy of expert predictions to those made by a particular learning algorithm. Instead, we propose a simple procedure which tests whether expert predictions are statistically independent from the outcomes of interest after conditioning on the available inputs (`features'). A rejection of our test thus suggests that human experts may add value to any algorithm trained on the available data, and has direct implications for whether human-AI `complementarity' is achievable in a given prediction task. We highlight the utility of our procedure using admissions data collected from the emergency department of a large academic hospital system, where we show that physicians' admit/discharge decisions for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) appear to be incorporating information that is not available to a standard algorithmic screening tool. This is despite the fact that the screening tool is arguably more accurate than physicians' discretionary decisions, highlighting that -- even absent normative concerns about accountability or interpretability -- accuracy is insufficient to justify algorithmic automation.
△ Less
Submitted 27 October, 2023; v1 submitted 2 June, 2023;
originally announced June 2023.
