Jordan L. Cahoon, Chloe Stanwyck, Asad Aali, Rachel Madding, Sulaiman S. Somani, Emma Sun, Yixing Jiang, Renumathy Dhanasekaran 等 9 位作者
Background: Clinical notes contain extensive duplicated text from templates, copy-paste, and auto-populated fields ("note bloat"), diluting clinical signal, limiting longitudinal context, and increasing large language model (LLM) costs. Methods: TRACE removes note bloat using note-level EHR metadata to identify templated and copied content, with frequency-based de-duplication when metadata are unavailable. We evaluated TRACE using blinded physician span review and gold-standard templated-text annotations across four cohorts spanning liver transplant, obstetrics, and inpatient populations at multiple health systems (5.3M notes). We compared zero-shot LLMs and embedding-based classifiers using original and TRACE-processed notes for 20 information extraction tasks and prediction of 5-year survival, postpartum hemorrhage, and 30-day readmission. Results: Only 0.3-6.6% of removed text was flagged as author-generated; TRACE captured 86% of annotated templated characters. Information extraction F1 differences averaged by cohort ranged from -0.009 to +0.004; task-specific prediction F1 differences ranged from -0.011 to +0.018. Among 1,000 randomly sampled Stanford Health Care patients, TRACE reduced chart text by 47.3% (742.7M characters), averaging 220,167 fewer tokens per patient. Using 2024 encounter volumes at a large tertiary academic center and one query per encounter, projected three-year net savings ranged from $1.00M to $13.58M across evaluated model pricing schemes, including initial and annual TRACE processing costs. Conclusion: TRACE substantially reduces clinical note redundancy while preserving information extraction and prediction performance. Underused EHR metadata can reduce LLM inference costs, expand usable longitudinal context, and support scalable clinical AI.
With the growing use of language models (LMs) in clinical environments, there is an immediate need to evaluate the accuracy and safety of LM-generated medical text. Currently, such evaluation relies solely on manual physician review. However, detecting errors in LM-generated text is challenging because 1) manual review is costly and 2) expert-composed reference outputs are often unavailable in real-world settings. While the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm offers scalable evaluation, even frontier LMs can miss subtle but clinically significant errors. We propose MedVAL, a novel, self-supervised, data-efficient distillation method that leverages synthetic data to train evaluator LMs to assess whether LM-generated medical outputs are factually consistent with inputs, without requiring physician labels or reference outputs. To evaluate LM performance, we introduce MedVAL-Bench, a dataset of 840 physician-annotated outputs across 6 diverse medical tasks capturing real-world challenges. Across 10 state-of-the-art LMs spanning open-source and proprietary models, MedVAL distillation significantly improves (p < 0.001) alignment with physicians across seen and unseen tasks, increasing average F1 scores from 66% to 83%. Despite strong baseline performance, MedVAL improves the best-performing proprietary LM (GPT-4o) by 8% without training on physician-labeled data, demonstrating a performance statistically non-inferior to a single human expert on a subset annotated by multiple physicians (p < 0.001). To support a scalable, risk-aware pathway towards clinical integration, we open-source: 1) Codebase (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/MedVAL), 2) MedVAL-Bench (https://huggingface.co/datasets/stanfordmimi/MedVAL-Bench), 3) MedVAL-4B (https://huggingface.co/stanfordmimi/MedVAL-4B). Our benchmark provides evidence of LMs approaching expert-level ability in validating AI-generated medical text.