Artificial Intelligence (AI) Methods for Augmenting the IMPACT Tool Evidence Library

Development of the Evidence Library for use with the IMPACT probability risk assessment tool took several years and involved a staggering amount of effort from a multi-disciplinary team. A very significant amount of the labor effort to collect, assess and finalize the Clinical Finding Form (CliFF) for each of the 119 medical conditions was provided by physician subject matter experts from the Exploration Medical Capability (ExMC) Element Clinical and Science Team.

Many AI tools such as ChatGPT are excellent at summarizing large amounts of information and the current project was initiated to determine how such tools might streamline laborious processes, e.g., review and summarization of many scientific research publications, to execute key steps more efficiently in the process of developing CliFFs. The process for collecting the evidence which is found in the CliFFs is well documented in the Evidence Library Methods document (ELM; HRP-48036*). Using ELM and the CliFF development instructions as a guideline, a team of developers is leveraging Microsoft Azure AI tools and services along with open-source frameworks, to construct an AI-assisted automated pipeline. This pipeline is designed to search, retrieve, and process the necessary data sources, and ultimately help generate the final version of a CliFF. Currently, the large language model evaluates the relevance of each source material to spaceflights, either as direct evidence or as an analog. Additionally, the model assists in extracting keywords and generating brief summaries to enhance augmented retrieval and search processes in later stages of CliFF development. Once the data is ready, the model can perform semantic search and retrieval, generating and extracting valuable information for the CliFF. For instance, it can handle epidemiological statistical data, such as incidence rates and the likelihood of best or worst-case scenarios.

The steps that required reading and summarizing articles were viewed as providing the greatest return on investment since large language models are very efficient and accurate in summarizing large amounts of text. Since labor effort to complete the original CliFF was not recorded with sufficient granularity, comparisons with an AI tool-generated CliFF will provide merely an approximation of time saved. Upon completion of the process, the CliFF for the medical condition “appendicitis” generated with the support of AI-based methods will serve as a proof-of-concept and will be compared to the original appendicitis CliFF to determine if use of the tools resulted in content and conclusory similarity. Based upon the results from face validation of the two CliFFs, modifications to the process will be made if necessary and additional condition CliFFs will be evaluated. Ultimately, CliFFs for the entire set of medical conditions will be created with the assistance of AI tools. Depending on the cost savings realized, CliFFs for additional medical conditions can be created to expand the Evidence Library. Future direction includes specifying the characteristics of the reviewer (prompting the AI tools to generate output assuming the reviewer is a sub-specialist physician, or nurse or EMT/medic) to determine if the effects on AI-generated output are different based on knowledge, skills and abilities.

*Exploration Medical Capability Evidence Library Methods, HRP-48036 Rev A, July 2022.