Do Physicians Know How to Prompt? The Need for Automatic Prompt Optimization Help in Clinical Note Generation

Overview

• This study examines how prompt engineering affects the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in generating clinical notes.
• The researchers introduce an Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) framework to refine initial prompts.
• They compare the outputs of medical experts, non-medical experts, and APO-enhanced GPT3.5 and GPT4.

Plain English Explanation

The researchers wanted to see how prompt engineering could improve the quality of clinical notes generated by large language models (LLMs) like GPT-3.5 and GPT-4. They developed a system called Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) to automatically refine the initial prompts given to the LLMs.

The study compared notes generated by medical experts, non-medical experts, and the APO-enhanced LLMs. The results showed that the GPT-4 model with APO performed the best at creating consistent, high-quality clinical notes across different sections.

The researchers also had a "human-in-the-loop" approach, where experts were able to review and modify the notes generated by the APO-enhanced LLMs. The experts preferred their own customized versions, suggesting that a combination of automated prompting and expert input is valuable for getting the best results.

The researchers recommend a two-step process: first using the APO-GPT4 system to ensure consistency, then having experts review and personalize the notes.

Technical Explanation

The researchers introduced an Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) framework to refine initial prompts given to LLMs for generating clinical notes. They compared the outputs of medical experts, non-medical experts, and the APO-enhanced versions of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4.

The results showed that the GPT-4 model with APO had superior performance in standardizing the quality of prompts across different sections of the clinical notes. A "human-in-the-loop" approach revealed that experts were able to maintain content quality after APO optimization, and preferred their own customized versions, suggesting the value of expert personalization.

The researchers recommend a two-phase optimization process: first using the APO-GPT4 system to ensure consistency, then incorporating expert input to further personalize the notes.

Critical Analysis

The study highlights the potential benefits of combining automated prompt optimization with expert human feedback. The researchers acknowledge that their approach relies on having access to medical experts, which may not always be feasible in real-world clinical settings.

Additionally, the study focused on a relatively narrow task of generating clinical notes. Further research would be needed to evaluate the generalizability of the APO framework to other types of content generation or downstream applications.

The paper could have provided more details on the specific metrics used to evaluate note quality, as well as the extent of the performance improvement observed between the different approaches. This additional context would help readers better assess the significance of the findings.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the value of prompt engineering in enhancing the performance of LLMs for clinical note generation. The researchers' Automatic Prompt Optimization (APO) framework, combined with expert human feedback, shows promise in producing high-quality, consistent notes. This approach could potentially be applied to other content generation tasks, though further research is needed to fully understand its broader applicability and limitations.