Showing 1–4 of 4 results for author: Revri, A

Adoption and Use of LLMs at an Academic Medical Center

Authors: Nigam H. Shah, Nerissa Ambers, Abby Pandya, Timothy Keyes, Juan M. Banda, Srikar Nallan, Carlene Lugtu, Artem A. Trotsyuk, Suhana Bedi, Alyssa Unell, Miguel Fuentes, Francois Grolleau, Sneha S. Jain, Jonathan Chen, Devdutta Dash, Danton Char, Aditya Sharma, Duncan McElfresh, Patrick Scully, Vishanthan Kumar, Clancy Dennis, Connor OBrien, Satchi Mouniswamy, Elvis Jones, Krishna Jasti , et al. (33 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) can support clinical documentation needs, standalone tools struggle with "workflow friction" from manual data entry. We developed ChatEHR, a system that enables the use of LLMs with the entire patient timeline spanning several years. ChatEHR enables automations - which are static combinations of prompts and data that perform a fixed task - and interactive use in… ▽ More While large language models (LLMs) can support clinical documentation needs, standalone tools struggle with "workflow friction" from manual data entry. We developed ChatEHR, a system that enables the use of LLMs with the entire patient timeline spanning several years. ChatEHR enables automations - which are static combinations of prompts and data that perform a fixed task - and interactive use in the electronic health record (EHR) via a user interface (UI). The resulting ability to sift through patient medical records for diverse use-cases such as pre-visit chart review, screening for transfer eligibility, monitoring for surgical site infections, and chart abstraction, redefines LLM use as an institutional capability. This system, accessible after user-training, enables continuous monitoring and evaluation of LLM use. In 1.5 years, we built 7 automations and 1075 users have trained to become routine users of the UI, engaging in 23,000 sessions in the first 3 months of launch. For automations, being model-agnostic and accessing multiple types of data was essential for matching specific clinical or administrative tasks with the most appropriate LLM. Benchmark-based evaluations proved insufficient for monitoring and evaluation of the UI, requiring new methods to monitor performance. Generation of summaries was the most frequent task in the UI, with an estimated 0.73 hallucinations and 1.60 inaccuracies per generation. The resulting mix of cost savings, time savings, and revenue growth required a value assessment framework to prioritize work as well as quantify the impact of using LLMs. Initial estimates are $6M savings in the first year of use, without quantifying the benefit of the better care offered. Such a "build-from-within" strategy provides an opportunity for health systems to maintain agency via a vendor-agnostic, internally governed LLM platform. △ Less

Submitted 30 April, 2026; v1 submitted 20 January, 2026; originally announced February 2026.

Monitoring Deployed AI Systems in Health Care

Authors: Timothy Keyes, Alison Callahan, Abby S. Pandya, Nerissa Ambers, Juan M. Banda, Miguel Fuentes, Carlene Lugtu, Pranav Masariya, Srikar Nallan, Connor O'Brien, Thomas Wang, Emily Alsentzer, Jonathan H. Chen, Dev Dash, Matthew A. Eisenberg, Patricia Garcia, Nikesh Kotecha, Anurang Revri, Michael A. Pfeffer, Nigam H. Shah, Sneha S. Jain

Abstract: Post-deployment monitoring of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health care is essential to ensure their safety, quality, and sustained benefit-and to support governance decisions about which systems to update, modify, or decommission. Motivated by these needs, we developed a framework for monitoring deployed AI systems grounded in the mandate to take specific actions when they fail to behav… ▽ More Post-deployment monitoring of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health care is essential to ensure their safety, quality, and sustained benefit-and to support governance decisions about which systems to update, modify, or decommission. Motivated by these needs, we developed a framework for monitoring deployed AI systems grounded in the mandate to take specific actions when they fail to behave as intended. This framework, which is now actively used at Stanford Health Care, is organized around three complementary principles: system integrity, performance, and impact. System integrity monitoring focuses on maximizing system uptime, detecting runtime errors, and identifying when changes to the surrounding IT ecosystem have unintended effects. Performance monitoring focuses on maintaining accurate system behavior in the face of changing health care practices (and thus input data) over time. Impact monitoring assesses whether a deployed system continues to have value in the form of benefit to clinicians and patients. Drawing on examples of deployed AI systems at our academic medical center, we provide practical guidance for creating monitoring plans based on these principles that specify which metrics to measure, when those metrics should be reviewed, who is responsible for acting when metrics change, and what concrete follow-up actions should be taken-for both traditional and generative AI. We also discuss challenges to implementing this framework, including the effort and cost of monitoring for health systems with limited resources and the difficulty of incorporating data-driven monitoring practices into complex organizations where conflicting priorities and definitions of success often coexist. This framework offers a practical template and starting point for health systems seeking to ensure that AI deployments remain safe and effective over time. △ Less

Submitted 15 January, 2026; v1 submitted 9 December, 2025; originally announced December 2025.

Comments: 36 pages, 3 figures

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

Authors: Suhana Bedi, Hejie Cui, Miguel Fuentes, Alyssa Unell, Michael Wornow, Juan M. Banda, Nikesh Kotecha, Timothy Keyes, Yifan Mai, Mert Oez, Hao Qiu, Shrey Jain, Leonardo Schettini, Mehr Kashyap, Jason Alan Fries, Akshay Swaminathan, Philip Chung, Fateme Nateghi, Asad Aali, Ashwin Nayak, Shivam Vedak, Sneha S. Jain, Birju Patel, Oluseyi Fayanju, Shreya Shah , et al. (56 additional authors not shown)

Abstract: While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcatego… ▽ More While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this. △ Less

Submitted 2 June, 2025; v1 submitted 26 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

Standing on FURM ground -- A framework for evaluating Fair, Useful, and Reliable AI Models in healthcare systems

Authors: Alison Callahan, Duncan McElfresh, Juan M. Banda, Gabrielle Bunney, Danton Char, Jonathan Chen, Conor K. Corbin, Debadutta Dash, Norman L. Downing, Sneha S. Jain, Nikesh Kotecha, Jonathan Masterson, Michelle M. Mello, Keith Morse, Srikar Nallan, Abby Pandya, Anurang Revri, Aditya Sharma, Christopher Sharp, Rahul Thapa, Michael Wornow, Alaa Youssef, Michael A. Pfeffer, Nigam H. Shah

Abstract: The impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) to guide patient care or operational processes is an interplay of the AI model's output, the decision-making protocol based on that output, and the capacity of the stakeholders involved to take the necessary subsequent action. Estimating the effects of this interplay before deployment, and studying it in real time afterwards, are essential to bridge… ▽ More The impact of using artificial intelligence (AI) to guide patient care or operational processes is an interplay of the AI model's output, the decision-making protocol based on that output, and the capacity of the stakeholders involved to take the necessary subsequent action. Estimating the effects of this interplay before deployment, and studying it in real time afterwards, are essential to bridge the chasm between AI model development and achievable benefit. To accomplish this, the Data Science team at Stanford Health Care has developed a Testing and Evaluation (T&E) mechanism to identify fair, useful and reliable AI models (FURM) by conducting an ethical review to identify potential value mismatches, simulations to estimate usefulness, financial projections to assess sustainability, as well as analyses to determine IT feasibility, design a deployment strategy, and recommend a prospective monitoring and evaluation plan. We report on FURM assessments done to evaluate six AI guided solutions for potential adoption, spanning clinical and operational settings, each with the potential to impact from several dozen to tens of thousands of patients each year. We describe the assessment process, summarize the six assessments, and share our framework to enable others to conduct similar assessments. Of the six solutions we assessed, two have moved into a planning and implementation phase. Our novel contributions - usefulness estimates by simulation, financial projections to quantify sustainability, and a process to do ethical assessments - as well as their underlying methods and open source tools, are available for other healthcare systems to conduct actionable evaluations of candidate AI solutions. △ Less

Submitted 14 March, 2024; v1 submitted 26 February, 2024; originally announced March 2024.