This website and third-party tools we use rely on cookies for the best user experience. By selecting "I agree", you agree to cookie usage as described in our Privacy Policy.
1,267 posters, 47 videos, 13 topics, 4 sessions, 853 authors
ePostersLive by SciGen Technologies S.A. All rights reserved.
September 9 - 12, 2026 | George R. Brown Convention Center, Houston, Texas
MM - 116
Multiple Myeloma (MM)
INTRODUCTION
Assess feasibility, safety, readability, and patient reported impact of LLM-converted clinic notes (AI notes) on patient understanding and satisfaction.
AIM
•
Prospective single center pilot study at Moffitt Cancer Center.
•
A HIPAA-compliant LLaMA 3.1 70B model prompt engineered and iteratively adapted using synthetic notes to convert clinic notes.
•
Targets: Flesch-Kincaid (FK) readability grade ≤9, Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) Understandability and Actionability ≥70%, and zero high-risk, ≤2 low-risk errors; noncompliant notes regenerated.
•
Three physician error review; inter rater reliability via intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).
•
Patient understanding and treatment satisfaction were assessed on 0–10 Likert scales before and after AI note review using survey responses.
•
Scores compared with one-sided paired Wilcoxon signed-rank tests since the metrics and survey outcomes were not normally distributed given small sample size.
•
Follow up patients with plasma cell dyscrasias or myeloid neoplasms. Thirty enrolled; 24 completed surveys. Median age 68.5 years; 67% female; median time since diagnosis 60 months.
Results:
•
AI notes (n=30): higher PEMAT Understandability (+23 points) and Actionability (+40 points), both p<0.01, similar readability to original notes (median FK difference −0.19; p=0.9) and were more concise (median −1,543 tokens; p<0.01) (Table 1).
•
Half of the AI notes met safety criteria on first attempt (median 1.5 attempts).
•
Overall low error rate (0.53 ± 0.67 per note) with 27% notes error free on first attempt; high risk errors limited to omissions (27%); no hallucinations.
•
Good physician agreement on error counts (ICC=0.76).
•
Patients reported improved understanding (p=0.01) and satisfaction (p=0.02) (Figure 2).
•
Among those with baseline scores ≤8 (25%), median improvements: +2 understanding (p=.03), +2.5 satisfaction (p=0.06).
•
All patients reported scores ≥8 post AI note review.
Conclusion:
LLMs can be leveraged to generate accurate, patient-centric clinic notes that enhance actionability of oncology information and potentially improve patient understanding and satisfaction.
•
Future efforts will aim to scale the approach and reduce errors.