Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Towards Adapting Open-Source Large Language Models for Expert-Level Clinical Note Generation

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2405.00715 v6 pith:FAYHLDEU submitted 2024-04-25 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LG

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LG
keywords clinicalnotesllama-clinicllmsmodelmodelsgeminigenerate
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Proprietary Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT-4 and Gemini have demonstrated promising capabilities in clinical text summarization tasks. However, due to patient data privacy concerns and computational costs, many healthcare providers prefer using small, locally-hosted models over external generic LLMs. This study presents a comprehensive domain- and task-specific adaptation process for the open-source LLaMA-2 13 billion parameter model, enabling it to generate high-quality clinical notes from outpatient patient-doctor dialogues. Our process incorporates continued pretraining, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning from both AI and human feedback. We introduced a new approach, DistillDirect, for performing on-policy reinforcement learning with Gemini 1.0 Pro as the teacher model. Our resulting model, LLaMA-Clinic, can generate clinical notes comparable in quality to those authored by physicians. In a blinded physician reader study, the majority (92.8%) of individual evaluations rated the notes generated by LLaMA-Clinic as "acceptable" or higher across three criteria: real-world readiness, completeness, and accuracy. In the more challenging "Assessment and Plan" section, LLaMA-Clinic matched physician-authored notes in real-world readiness score. We highlight key considerations for future clinical note-generation tasks, emphasizing the importance of pre-defining a "best practice" note format, rather than relying on LLMs to determine this for clinical practice.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Are LLMs reliable? An exploration of the reliability of large language models in clinical note generation

    cs.CL 2025-05 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    With temperature set to zero and ten repeated runs, all tested LLMs kept semantic consistency above 96% on clinical note generation, while Llama 70B and Mistral Small had the best combined consistency and correctness.

Pith tools