A prospective clinical feasibility study of a conversational diagnostic AI in an ambulatory primary care clinic

Large language model (LLM)-based AI systems have shown promise for patient-facing diagnostic and management conversations in simulated settings. Translating these systems into clinical practice requires assessment in real-world workflows with rigorous safety oversight. We report a prospective, single-arm feasibility study of an LLM-based conversational AI, the Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer (AMIE), conducting clinical history taking and presentation of potential diagnoses for patients to discuss with their provider at urgent care appointments at a leading academic medical center. 100 adult patients completed an AMIE text-chat interaction up to 5 days before their appointment. We sought to assess the conversational safety and quality, patient and clinician experience, and clinical reasoning capabilities compared to primary care providers (PCPs). Human safety supervisors monitored all patient-AMIE interactions in real time and did not need to intervene to stop any consultations based on pre-defined criteria. Patients reported high satisfaction and their attitudes towards AI improved after interacting with AMIE (p < 0.001). PCPs found AMIE's output useful with a positive impact on preparedness. AMIE's differential diagnosis (DDx) included the final diagnosis, per chart review 8 weeks post-encounter, in 90% of cases, with 75% top-3 accuracy. Blinded assessment of AMIE and PCP DDx and management (Mx) plans suggested similar overall DDx and Mx plan quality, without significant differences for DDx (p = 0.6) and appropriateness and safety of Mx (p = 0.1 and 1.0, respectively). PCPs outperformed AMIE in the practicality (p = 0.003) and cost effectiveness (p = 0.004) of Mx. While further research is needed, this study demonstrates the initial feasibility, safety, and user acceptance of conversational AI in a real-world setting, representing crucial steps towards clinical translation.

Consensus, dissensus and synergy between clinicians and specialist foundation models in radiology report generation

Radiology reports are an instrumental part of modern medicine, informing key clinical decisions such as diagnosis and treatment. The worldwide shortage of radiologists, however, restricts access to expert care and imposes heavy workloads, contributing to avoidable errors and delays in report delivery. While recent progress in automated report generation with vision-language models offer clear potential in ameliorating the situation, the path to real-world adoption has been stymied by the challenge of evaluating the clinical quality of AI-generated reports. In this study, we build a state-of-the-art report generation system for chest radiographs, \textit{Flamingo-CXR}, by fine-tuning a well-known vision-language foundation model on radiology data. To evaluate the quality of the AI-generated reports, a group of 16 certified radiologists provide detailed evaluations of AI-generated and human written reports for chest X-rays from an intensive care setting in the United States and an inpatient setting in India. At least one radiologist (out of two per case) preferred the AI report to the ground truth report in over 60$\%$ of cases for both datasets. Amongst the subset of AI-generated reports that contain errors, the most frequently cited reasons were related to the location and finding, whereas for human written reports, most mistakes were related to severity and finding. This disparity suggested potential complementarity between our AI system and human experts, prompting us to develop an assistive scenario in which \textit{Flamingo-CXR} generates a first-draft report, which is subsequently revised by a clinician. This is the first demonstration of clinician-AI collaboration for report writing, and the resultant reports are assessed to be equivalent or preferred by at least one radiologist to reports written by experts alone in 80$\%$ of in-patient cases and 60$\%$ of intensive care cases.