Sifting through vast textual data and summarizing key information from electronic health records (EHR) imposes a substantial burden on how clinicians allocate their time. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown immense promise in natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their efficacy on a diverse range of clinical summarization tasks has not yet been rigorously demonstrated. In this work, we apply domain adaptation methods to eight LLMs, spanning six datasets and four distinct clinical summarization tasks: radiology reports, patient questions, progress notes, and doctor-patient dialogue. Our thorough quantitative assessment reveals trade-offs between models and adaptation methods in addition to instances where recent advances in LLMs may not improve results. Further, in a clinical reader study with ten physicians, we show that summaries from our best-adapted LLMs are preferable to human summaries in terms of completeness and correctness. Our ensuing qualitative analysis highlights challenges faced by both LLMs and human experts. Lastly, we correlate traditional quantitative NLP metrics with reader study scores to enhance our understanding of how these metrics align with physician preferences. Our research marks the first evidence of LLMs outperforming human experts in clinical text summarization across multiple tasks. This implies that integrating LLMs into clinical workflows could alleviate documentation burden, empowering clinicians to focus more on personalized patient care and the inherently human aspects of medicine.

This article provides radiologists with a comprehensive understanding of the characteristics of large language models and how to best use these models in clinical practice, including practical guidance on limitations, effective prompting, and fine-tuning strategies.

A fine-tuned, open-source large language model (Mistral-7B; Mistral AI) effectively extracted clinical history elements from imaging orders with substantial agreement with radiologists and rivaled a closed-source model (GPT-4 Turbo; OpenAI).

Cryogenic electron tomography (cryoET) is a powerful tool in structural biology, enabling detailed 3D imaging of biological specimens at a resolution of nanometers. Despite its potential, cryoET faces challenges such as the missing wedge problem, which limits reconstruction quality due to incomplete data collection angles. Recently, supervised deep learning methods leveraging convolutional neural networks (CNNs) have considerably addressed this issue; however, their pretraining requirements render them susceptible to inaccuracies and artifacts, particularly when representative training data is scarce. To overcome these limitations, we introduce a proof-of-concept unsupervised learning approach using coordinate networks (CNs) that optimizes network weights directly against input projections. This eliminates the need for pretraining, reducing reconstruction runtime by 3–20× compared to supervised methods. Our in silico results show improved shape completion and reduction of missing wedge artifacts, assessed through several voxel-based image quality metrics in real space and a novel directional Fourier Shell Correlation (FSC) metric. Our study illuminates benefits and considerations of both supervised and unsupervised approaches, guiding the development of improved reconstruction strategies.

Analyzing vast textual data and summarizing key information from electronic health records imposes a substantial burden on how clinicians allocate their time. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in natural language processing (NLP), their effectiveness on a diverse range of clinical summarization tasks remains unproven. In this study, we apply adaptation methods to eight LLMs, spanning four distinct clinical summarization tasks: radiology reports, patient questions, progress notes, and doctor-patient dialogue. Quantitative assessments with syntactic, semantic, and conceptual NLP metrics reveal trade-offs between models and adaptation methods. A clinical reader study with ten physicians evaluates summary completeness, correctness, and conciseness; in a majority of cases, summaries from our best adapted LLMs are either equivalent (45%) or superior (36%) compared to summaries from medical experts. The ensuing safety analysis highlights challenges faced by both LLMs and medical experts, as we connect errors to potential medical harm and categorize types of fabricated information. Our research provides evidence of LLMs outperforming medical experts in clinical text summarization across multiple tasks. This suggests that integrating LLMs into clinical workflows could alleviate documentation burden, allowing clinicians to focus more on patient care.