Home
Abstract
My Abstract(s)
Login
ePosters
Back
Final Presentation Format
Non-Moderated Poster Abstract
Eposter Presentation
Eposter in PDF Format
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/a65d422a1979d786a4b5fdd47fa7c4dd.pdf
Accept format: PDF. The file size should not be more than 5MB
Eposter in Image Format
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/467fe96c67e58145bc235a7f9d8a995a.jpg
Accept format: PNG/JPG/WEBP. The file size should not be more than 2MB
Presentation Date / Time
Submission Status
Submitted
Abstract
Abstract Title
Evaluating Large Language Models for Clinical Documentation in Urology: A QNOTE-Based Comparison of GPT-4 and GPT-4o
Presentation Type
Podium Abstract
Manuscript Type
Clinical Research
Abstract Category *
AI in Urology
Author's Information
Number of Authors (including submitting/presenting author) *
5
No more than 10 authors can be listed (as per the Good Publication Practice (GPP) Guidelines).
Please ensure the authors are listed in the right order.
Country
Taiwan
Co-author 1
Liang-Chen Huang sam831009@gmail.com National Taiwan University Hospital Urology Taipei City Taiwan *
Co-author 2
Yun-Sheng Wu b07401082@ntu.edu.tw National Taiwan University Hospital Taipei City Taiwan -
Co-author 3
Jung-Yang Yu ericyu29218218@gmail.com National Taiwan University Hospital Urology Taipei City Taiwan -
Co-author 4
Chung-Cheng Wang ericwcc@ms27.hinet.net En Chu Kong Hospital Urol New Taipei City Taiwan -
Co-author 5
Jian-Hua Hong cliffordhong622@gmail.com National Taiwan University Hospital Urology Taipei City Taiwan -
Co-author 6
-
Co-author 7
-
Co-author 8
-
Co-author 9
-
Co-author 10
-
Co-author 11
-
Co-author 12
-
Co-author 13
-
Co-author 14
-
Co-author 15
-
Co-author 16
-
Co-author 17
-
Co-author 18
-
Co-author 19
-
Co-author 20
-
Abstract Content
Introduction
The urology department frequently manages a high volume of inpatient elective procedures, contributing to a demanding clinical environment. The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) has the potential to streamline repetitive tasks, particularly in clinical documentation. This study aims to assess the performance and accuracy of generative AI and large language models (GAI/LLMs) in producing admission summaries based on outpatient clinic notes.
Materials and Methods
Patients undergoing inpatient elective procedures, arranged through outpatient clinic visits between January and July 2024, were included in this study. AI models, GPT-4 (Model 1) and GPT-4o (Model 2), were prompted to generate admission summaries based on a single original clinical input derived from each patient’s outpatient clinic note. The quality of the generated summaries was assessed using the QNOTE scoring system, a non-disease-specific, 12-category, 44-item rubric evaluating the quality of clinical documentation across various domains.
Results
A total of 60 patients were included in the evaluation. Both AI models generated high-quality admission summaries, with Model 1 (GPT-4) achieving an average QNOTE score of 86.17, and Model 2 (GPT-4o) scoring 92.68 (out of 100). Both models received perfect scores in several categories. However, Model 2 consistently outperformed Model 1 in subjective assessments and across multiple QNOTE domains. The distribution of QNOTE scores for admission notes generated from the original clinical input, comparing Model 1 and Model 2, is shown in Figure 1.
Conclusions
GAI/LLMs demonstrate the ability to generate high-quality admission summaries for inpatient elective urology procedures based on a single outpatient clinic note. GPT-4o outperformed GPT-4 in both objective and subjective evaluations. While these AI models show strong potential, clinicians should review the generated summaries for accuracy and consistency. Further research with larger sample sizes and continued development of AI models is necessary to validate these findings and refine their clinical application.
Keywords
Electronic medical record, Large language model, Efficiency
Figure 1
https://storage.unitedwebnetwork.com/files/1237/7f73abab6ad0a760baab10251d5b9b51.jpg
Figure 1 Caption
Qualitative assessment of the clinical note. The bars represent the percentage of different components of the 12 elements of QNOTE and an overall note score located at the bottom of the chart.
Figure 2
Figure 2 Caption
Figure 3
Figure 3 Caption
Figure 4
Figure 4 Caption
Figure 5
Figure 5 Caption
Character Count
1551
Vimeo Link
Presentation Details
Session
Date
Time
Presentation Order