Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Demonstrates an LLM synthesizes electronic medical records for cardiac surgery case reviews, indicating feasibility to support surgical morbidity and mortality discussions.
OBJECTIVE: Morbidity & Mortality Conferences (M&Ms) are forums to assess adverse outcomes and to analyze their root causes. We sought to utilize a large language model (LLM) to generate discussion materials for cardiac surgery M&Ms, based upon data available in the electronic medical record (EMR). DESIGN: EMR data, including information from notes, bloodwork, vital sign monitoring, and the medication administration record, were input into a private instance of GPT-5. A prompt was iterated to accomplish three tasks, resulting in the generation of (1) a case outline, (2) a discussion table to identify deviations from evidence-based recommendations, and (3) discussion questions. Readability was assessed by Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level. SETTING: Our study was conducted within a high-volume cardiothoracic surgery department with residency- and fellowship-level training programs. PARTICIPANTS: A survey was administered to trainees in cardiothoracic surgery to assess perceptions of LLM-generated (LG) materials. RESULTS: EMR data was compiled for a total of fourteen cardiac surgery cases. LG and trainee-generated (TG) case outlines did not differ significantly in median word count (453.5 (LG) vs. 487.5 (TG); p = 0.68), though LG outlines had a higher median Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (13.9 (LG) vs. 11.6 (TG); p = 0.003). 9 trainees completed a two-alternative, forced-choice survey comparing TG and LG outlines. LG outlines were more frequently preferred for presentation of baseline information (59.3% (16/27) (LG) vs. 40.7% (11/27) (TG)), while preferences on the basis of operative and perioperative information were more evenly distributed. LG discussion tables and questions had high perceived clinical applicability. CONCLUSIONS: An LLM effectively synthesized information from the EMR, in order to outline cases and prompt systems-based discussions about adverse events.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Magro et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: