arXiv subjects

Mehr Kashyap

Publications and source records attributed to Mehr Kashyap.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Adoption and Use of LLMs at an Academic Medical Center

While large language models (LLMs) can support clinical documentation needs, standalone tools struggle with "workflow friction" from manual data entry. We developed ChatEHR, a system that enables the use of LLMs with the entire patient timeline spanning several years. ChatEHR enables automations - which are static combinations of prompts and data that perform a fixed task - and interactive use in the electronic health record (EHR) via a user interface (UI). The resulting ability to sift through patient medical records for diverse use-cases such as pre-visit chart review, screening for transfer eligibility, monitoring for surgical site infections, and chart abstraction, redefines LLM use as an institutional capability. This system, accessible after user-training, enables continuous monitoring and evaluation of LLM use. In 1.5 years, we built 7 automations and 1075 users have trained to become routine users of the UI, engaging in 23,000 sessions in the first 3 months of launch. For automations, being model-agnostic and accessing multiple types of data was essential for matching specific clinical or administrative tasks with the most appropriate LLM. Benchmark-based evaluations proved insufficient for monitoring and evaluation of the UI, requiring new methods to monitor performance. Generation of summaries was the most frequent task in the UI, with an estimated 0.73 hallucinations and 1.60 inaccuracies per generation. The resulting mix of cost savings, time savings, and revenue growth required a value assessment framework to prioritize work as well as quantify the impact of using LLMs. Initial estimates are $6M savings in the first year of use, without quantifying the benefit of the better care offered. Such a "build-from-within" strategy provides an opportunity for health systems to maintain agency via a vendor-agnostic, internally governed LLM platform.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FactEHR: A Dataset for Evaluating Factuality in Clinical Notes Using LLMs

Verifying and attributing factual claims is essential for the safe and effective use of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare. A core component of factuality evaluation is fact decomposition, the process of breaking down complex clinical statements into fine-grained atomic facts for verification. Recent work has proposed fact decomposition, which uses LLMs to rewrite source text into concise sentences conveying a single piece of information, to facilitate fine-grained fact verification. However, clinical documentation poses unique challenges for fact decomposition due to dense terminology and diverse note types and remains understudied. To address this gap and explore these challenges, we present FactEHR, an NLI dataset consisting of document fact decompositions for 2,168 clinical notes spanning four types from three hospital systems, resulting in 987,266 entailment pairs. We assess the generated facts on different axes, from entailment evaluation of LLMs to a qualitative analysis. Our evaluation, including review by the clinicians, reveals substantial variability in LLM performance for fact decomposition. For example, Gemini-1.5-Flash consistently generates relevant and accurate facts, while Llama-3 8B produces fewer and less consistent outputs. The results underscore the need for better LLM capabilities to support factual verification in clinical text.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Evaluation of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for supporting real-world information needs in healthcare delivery

Despite growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, current explorations do not assess the real-world utility and safety of LLMs in clinical settings. Our objective was to determine whether two LLMs can serve information needs submitted by physicians as questions to an informatics consultation service in a safe and concordant manner. Sixty six questions from an informatics consult service were submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 via simple prompts. 12 physicians assessed the LLM responses' possibility of patient harm and concordance with existing reports from an informatics consultation service. Physician assessments were summarized based on majority vote. For no questions did a majority of physicians deem either LLM response as harmful. For GPT-3.5, responses to 8 questions were concordant with the informatics consult report, 20 discordant, and 9 were unable to be assessed. There were 29 responses with no majority on "Agree", "Disagree", and "Unable to assess". For GPT-4, responses to 13 questions were concordant, 15 discordant, and 3 were unable to be assessed. There were 35 responses with no majority. Responses from both LLMs were largely devoid of overt harm, but less than 20% of the responses agreed with an answer from an informatics consultation service, responses contained hallucinated references, and physicians were divided on what constitutes harm. These results suggest that while general purpose LLMs are able to provide safe and credible responses, they often do not meet the specific information need of a given question. A definitive evaluation of the usefulness of LLMs in healthcare settings will likely require additional research on prompt engineering, calibration, and custom-tailoring of general purpose models.

cs.AI↗