Appraising the Potential Uses and Harms of LLMs for Medical Systematic Reviews

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2305.11828v3
• Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2023 13:54:15 GMT
• Title: Appraising the Potential Uses and Harms of LLMs for Medical Systematic Reviews
• Authors: Hye Sun Yun, Iain J. Marshall, Thomas A. Trikalinos, Byron C. Wallace
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) offer potential to automatically generate literature reviews on demand. LLMs sometimes generate inaccurate (and potentially misleading) texts by hallucination or omission.
• Score: 21.546144601311187
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Medical systematic reviews play a vital role in healthcare decision making and policy. However, their production is time-consuming, limiting the availability of high-quality and up-to-date evidence summaries. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer the potential to automatically generate literature reviews on demand, addressing this issue. However, LLMs sometimes generate inaccurate (and potentially misleading) texts by hallucination or omission. In healthcare, this can make LLMs unusable at best and dangerous at worst. We conducted 16 interviews with international systematic review experts to characterize the perceived utility and risks of LLMs in the specific context of medical evidence reviews. Experts indicated that LLMs can assist in the writing process by drafting summaries, generating templates, distilling information, and crosschecking information. They also raised concerns regarding confidently composed but inaccurate LLM outputs and other potential downstream harms, including decreased accountability and proliferation of low-quality reviews. Informed by this qualitative analysis, we identify criteria for rigorous evaluation of biomedical LLMs aligned with domain expert views.

Related papers

• LLM Internal States Reveal Hallucination Risk Faced With a Query [62.29558761326031]
  Humans have a self-awareness process that allows us to recognize what we don't know when faced with queries. This paper investigates whether Large Language Models can estimate their own hallucination risk before response generation. By a probing estimator, we leverage LLM self-assessment, achieving an average hallucination estimation accuracy of 84.32% at run time.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T17:08:52Z)
• LLMs Assist NLP Researchers: Critique Paper (Meta-)Reviewing [106.45895712717612]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown remarkable versatility in various generative tasks. This study focuses on the topic of LLMs assist NLP Researchers. To our knowledge, this is the first work to provide such a comprehensive analysis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T01:30:22Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• MedExpQA: Multilingual Benchmarking of Large Language Models for Medical Question Answering [8.110978727364397]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have the potential of facilitating the development of Artificial Intelligence technology. This paper presents MedExpQA, the first multilingual benchmark based on medical exams to evaluate LLMs in Medical Question Answering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T15:03:57Z)
• A Chinese Dataset for Evaluating the Safeguards in Large Language Models [46.43476815725323]
  Large language models (LLMs) can produce harmful responses. This paper introduces a dataset for the safety evaluation of Chinese LLMs. We then extend it to two other scenarios that can be used to better identify false negative and false positive examples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-19T14:56:18Z)
• How well do LLMs cite relevant medical references? An evaluation framework and analyses [18.1921791355309]
  Large language models (LLMs) are currently being used to answer medical questions across a variety of clinical domains. In this paper, we ask: do the sources that LLMs generate actually support the claims that they make? We demonstrate that GPT-4 is highly accurate in validating source relevance, agreeing 88% of the time with a panel of medical doctors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-03T03:44:57Z)
• FFT: Towards Harmlessness Evaluation and Analysis for LLMs with Factuality, Fairness, Toxicity [21.539026782010573]
  The widespread of generative artificial intelligence has heightened concerns about the potential harms posed by AI-generated texts. Previous researchers have invested much effort in assessing the harmlessness of generative language models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-30T14:18:47Z)
• Large Language Models Illuminate a Progressive Pathway to Artificial Healthcare Assistant: A Review [16.008511195589925]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising capabilities in mimicking human-level language comprehension and reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive review on the applications and implications of LLMs in medicine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T13:51:36Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.