大模型
arxiv.org ·
论文:急诊科复诊质量审查筛查中的人类决策与 AI 辅助探索
arXiv 论文(2609.10421)对多医院医疗系统内 1-14 天急诊复诊病例进行回顾性探索研究,纳入 99 对诊断,由 2-3 名临床医生与 GPT-4 评估诊断对是否需进一步审查。结果显示 GPT-4 与临床医生评分相关性差,将 94% 的诊断对判为需随访,是临床医生的 4.4-13.3 倍,但提示工程较为简单。基于 LLM 填充知识图谱的 KGA 算法对至少一名临床医生判定需进一步评估的阳性预测值为 83-100%。作者认为结果可指导 LLM 筛查改进,但需进一步研究验证。
AI推荐理由 arXiv 论文,研究急诊科复诊质量审查中人类决策与 GPT-4 辅助筛查的对比,含 99 对诊断样本、KGA 算法 83-100% 阳性预测值等具体结果,并明确指出 GPT-4 与临床医生评分相关性差、提示工程有限等局限。属可验证的初步研究,作者自述需进一步验证。
70
正文
Computer Science > Computers and Society
arXiv:2609.10421 (cs)
[Submitted on 9 Sep 2026]
Title:Emergency Department Revisit Quality Review Screening: Exploring Human Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Support
Authors:Jonathan A. Handler, Marlene I. Robles-Granda, Jacob E. Mefford, Jeremy S. McGarvey, Gregory S. Podolej, Colleen J. Klein, Matthew D. Dalstrom, William F. Bond
View a PDF of the paper titled Emergency Department Revisit Quality Review Screening: Exploring Human Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Support, by Jonathan A. Handler and 7 other authors
View PDF
Abstract:Background: Emergency Department (ED) return visits are commonly reviewed for quality assurance, but are often limited (e.g., to revisits within 48-72 hours) to increase actionable finding yield while minimizing chart review burden. Those limitations may lead to missed quality improvement opportunities.
Methods: We conducted an exploratory, retrospective study of randomly selected ED visits to a multihospital health system having an ED revisit within 1-14 days to the same health system. Given only each visit's primary diagnosis, raters (2-3 clinicians and GPT-4 large language model [LLM]) assessed characteristics of the diagnosis pairs, including the "target": whether a pair warranted further assessment. Informed by rater response analyses, an algorithm leveraging an LLM-populated knowledge graph ("KGA") was created to automatically screen for potentially concerning pairs, then preliminarily assessed.
Results: 99 diagnosis pairs were included. GPT-4 responses poorly correlated to clinician raters, rating nearly all (94%) pairs as warranting follow-up (4.4-13.3 times more than clinicians). However, prompt engineering was minimal. Among clinician raters, revisit medical gravity was consistently significantly associated with the target, while a differential diagnosis/complication composite was significantly associated on unadjusted, but not adjusted (though less powered) analysis. The KGA achieved 83-100% positive predictive value for at least one clinician rater determining further assessment was warranted based on the diagnosis pair.
Conclusion: These results can inform next steps for improving screening with LLMs like ChatGPT. Further research is warranted to validate this preliminary work's finding that the KGA may enable enhancing the scope and yield of screening without substantially increasing reviewer workload.
Comments:
Subjects:
Computers and Society (cs.CY); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
ACM classes:
I.2.1; J.3
Cite as:
arXiv:2609.10421 [cs.CY]
(or
arXiv:2609.10421v1 [cs.CY] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.10421
Focus to learn more
arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Submission history
From: Jonathan Handler [view email]
[v1]
Wed, 9 Sep 2026 16:37:35 UTC (556 KB)
Full-text links:
Access Paper:
View a PDF of the paper titled Emergency Department Revisit Quality Review Screening: Exploring Human Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Support, by Jonathan A. Handler and 7 other authors
View PDF
view license
Current browse context:
cs.CY
new
|
recent
| 2026-09
Change to browse by:
cs
cs.AI
References & Citations
NASA ADS
Google Scholar
Semantic Scholar
export BibTeX citation
Loading...
BibTeX formatted citation
×
loading...
Data provided by:
Bookmark
Bibliographic Tools
Bibliographic and Citation Tools
Bibliographic Explorer Toggle
Bibliographic Explorer (What is the Explorer?)
Connected Papers Toggle
Connected Papers (What is Connected Papers?)
Litmaps Toggle
Litmaps (What is Litmaps?)
scite.ai Toggle
scite Smart Citations (What are Smart Citations?)
Code, Data, Media
Code, Data and Media Associated with this Article
alphaXiv Toggle
alphaXiv (What is alphaXiv?)
Links to Code Toggle
CatalyzeX Code Finder for Papers (What is CatalyzeX?)
DagsHub Toggle
DagsHub (What is DagsHub?)
GotitPub Toggle
Gotit.pub (What is GotitPub?)
Huggingface Toggle
Hugging Face (What is Huggingface?)
ScienceCast Toggle
ScienceCast (What is ScienceCast?)
Demos
Demos
Replicate Toggle
Replicate (What is Replicate?)
Spaces Toggle
Hugging Face Spaces (What is Spaces?)
Spaces Toggle
TXYZ.AI (What is TXYZ.AI?)
Related Papers
Recommenders and Search Tools
Link to Influence Flower
Influence Flower (What are Influence Flowers?)
Core recommender toggle
CORE Recommender (What is CORE?)
Author
Venue
Institution
Topic
About arXivLabs
arXivLabs: experimental projects with community collaborators
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Which authors of this paper are endorsers? |
Disable MathJax (What is MathJax?)