Clinical trial NCT06627985: Multi-Disciplinary Treatment on the Anthropomorphism of Large Language Models
Official title: Multi-Disciplinary Treatment on the Anthropomorphism of Large Language Models: A Parallel Controlled Study
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: NOT_YET_RECRUITING
Conditions: Cancer
Respiratory Failure
Heart Diseases
Infections
Pneumonia
Disease
Lead sponsor: North Sichuan Medical College
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: Afﬁliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College
name: University of Glasgow
name: Peking University
name: Peking University First Hospital
name: Beijing Institute of Petrochemical Technology
name: Case Western Reserve University
name: Monash University
First posted: 2024-10-04
Enrollment: 300
Sex: ALL
Standard ages: CHILD
ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Observational model: OTHER
Time perspective: RETROSPECTIVE
Sampling method: NON_PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: From hospital

Brief summary: This retrospective clinical trial aims to better explore the potential of large language models in medicine by comparing the effectiveness of MDT consultations conducted by human doctors with those conducted by large language models.

The main questions to be addressed are:

Does using large language models to conduct anthropomorphic MDT consultations yield better results than using non-anthropomorphic processes? Is there a significant performance gap between MDT consultations conducted by large language models and those conducted by humans? How much greater is the economic benefit of MDT consultations from large language models compared to those conducted by humans?

Retrospectively collect MDT consultation records from the past 20 years in northern Sichuan in China, as well as anonymized patient medical records. Group 1: Different large language models are assigned to act as doctors from different departments and as MDT secretaries to summarize consultations. Group 2: The large language model directly outputs diagnostic and treatment recommendations for patients. Compare the outputs of groups 1 and 2 with human performance retrospectively, score them, and select the best model from each department for a re-evaluation through anthropomorphic MDT consultations, once again comparing them to human results.


Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* 1. The medical records include interdisciplinary consultation notes, with recommendations from specialists of various departments and a well-documented final summary.
* 2. The medical records contain data from at least one year prior to and one year following the consultation (including intact reports and imaging records).
* 3. The patient\&amp;amp;#39;s discharge conditions improved due to the multidisciplinary treatment plan after the consultation.

Exclusion Criteria:

* 1. The medical records do not include multidisciplinary consultation notes, or the recommendations from various departmental physicians and the final summary notes are incomplete or inadequate.
* 2. The medical records lack data from 1 year before and after the consultation, or miss necessary reports and imaging data, resulting in incomplete documentation.
* 3. The patient\&amp;amp;#39;s condition at discharge has not improved following the multidisciplinary treatment plan, or the condition has worsened.

Primary outcomes:
measure: Consultation Cost ($)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Consultation Time (min)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Comprehensiveness of the Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Results (Percentage Scale)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Clarity of Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Results (Percentage Scale)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Correctness of Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Results (Percentage Scale)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Cross-Professional Team Collaboration Practice Assessment (CPAT)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Rating Scale for Summarization
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
measure: Flesch-Kincaid Readability Test
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Ethical Compliance (Boolean)
timeFrame: From Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process to Multi-Disciplinary Treatment Process until all json fields are output, the time taken by human doctors to record the time using His system generally does not exceed 12 hours.
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Nanchong
country: China
facility: The Affiliated Hospital of North Sichuan Medical College
state: Sichuan
Study officials:
References:
citation: Schroder C, Medves J, Paterson M, Byrnes V, Chapman C, O'Riordan A, Pichora D, Kelly C. Development and pilot testing of the collaborative practice assessment tool. J Interprof Care. 2011 May;25(3):189-95. doi: 10.3109/13561820.2010.532620. Epub 2010 Dec 23.