Diagnostic Reasoning Prompts Reveal the Potential for Large Language
Model Interpretability in Medicine
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2308.06834v1
- Date: Sun, 13 Aug 2023 19:04:07 GMT
- Title: Diagnostic Reasoning Prompts Reveal the Potential for Large Language
Model Interpretability in Medicine
- Authors: Thomas Savage, Ashwin Nayak, Robert Gallo, Ekanath Rangan, Jonathan H
Chen
- Abstract summary: We develop novel diagnostic reasoning prompts to study whether large language models (LLMs) can perform clinical reasoning to accurately form a diagnosis.
We find GPT4 can be prompted to mimic the common clinical reasoning processes of clinicians without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy.
- Score: 4.773117448586697
- License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
- Abstract: One of the major barriers to using large language models (LLMs) in medicine
is the perception they use uninterpretable methods to make clinical decisions
that are inherently different from the cognitive processes of clinicians. In
this manuscript we develop novel diagnostic reasoning prompts to study whether
LLMs can perform clinical reasoning to accurately form a diagnosis. We find
that GPT4 can be prompted to mimic the common clinical reasoning processes of
clinicians without sacrificing diagnostic accuracy. This is significant because
an LLM that can use clinical reasoning to provide an interpretable rationale
offers physicians a means to evaluate whether LLMs can be trusted for patient
care. Novel prompting methods have the potential to expose the black box of
LLMs, bringing them one step closer to safe and effective use in medicine.
Related papers
- CliBench: Multifaceted Evaluation of Large Language Models in Clinical Decisions on Diagnoses, Procedures, Lab Tests Orders and Prescriptions [16.310913127940857]
We introduce CliBench, a novel benchmark developed from the MIMIC IV dataset.
This benchmark offers a comprehensive and realistic assessment of LLMs' capabilities in clinical diagnosis.
We conduct a zero-shot evaluation of leading LLMs to assess their proficiency in clinical decision-making.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-06-14T11:10:17Z) - Dr-LLaVA: Visual Instruction Tuning with Symbolic Clinical Grounding [53.629132242389716]
Vision-Language Models (VLM) can support clinicians by analyzing medical images and engaging in natural language interactions.
VLMs often exhibit "hallucinogenic" behavior, generating textual outputs not grounded in contextual multimodal information.
We propose a new alignment algorithm that uses symbolic representations of clinical reasoning to ground VLMs in medical knowledge.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-29T23:19:28Z) - Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
Large language models (LLMs) can estimate causal effects under interventions on different parts of a system.
We conduct empirical analyses to evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.
We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types, and enable a study of intervention-based reasoning.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z) - Guiding Clinical Reasoning with Large Language Models via Knowledge Seeds [32.99251005719732]
Clinical reasoning refers to the cognitive process that physicians employ in evaluating and managing patients.
In this study, we introduce a novel framework, In-Context Padding (ICP), designed to enhance LLMs with medical knowledge.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-11T10:53:20Z) - ArgMed-Agents: Explainable Clinical Decision Reasoning with LLM Disscusion via Argumentation Schemes [7.950883198425716]
ArgMed-Agents is a framework to enable large language models (LLMs) to make explainable clinical decision reasoning through interaction.
We construct a formal model of ArgMed-Agents and present conjectures for theoretical guarantees.
setup experiments show that ArgMed-Agents not only improves accuracy in complex clinical decision reasoning problems compared to other prompt methods, but more importantly, it provides users with decision explanations that increase their confidence.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-10T19:47:00Z) - AI Hospital: Benchmarking Large Language Models in a Multi-agent Medical Interaction Simulator [69.51568871044454]
We introduce textbfAI Hospital, a framework simulating dynamic medical interactions between emphDoctor as player and NPCs.
This setup allows for realistic assessments of LLMs in clinical scenarios.
We develop the Multi-View Medical Evaluation benchmark, utilizing high-quality Chinese medical records and NPCs.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-15T06:46:48Z) - Large Language Model Distilling Medication Recommendation Model [61.89754499292561]
We harness the powerful semantic comprehension and input-agnostic characteristics of Large Language Models (LLMs)
Our research aims to transform existing medication recommendation methodologies using LLMs.
To mitigate this, we have developed a feature-level knowledge distillation technique, which transfers the LLM's proficiency to a more compact model.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-02-05T08:25:22Z) - Large Language Models are Clinical Reasoners: Reasoning-Aware Diagnosis Framework with Prompt-Generated Rationales [15.362903610463285]
We present a "reasoning-aware" diagnosis framework that rationalizes the diagnostic process via prompt-based learning.
We propose a novel set of criteria for evaluating machine-generated rationales' potential for real-world clinical settings.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-12-12T16:14:45Z) - Adapted Large Language Models Can Outperform Medical Experts in Clinical Text Summarization [8.456700096020601]
Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in natural language processing (NLP), but their effectiveness on a diverse range of clinical summarization tasks remains unproven.
In this study, we apply adaptation methods to eight LLMs, spanning four distinct clinical summarization tasks.
A clinical reader study with ten physicians evaluates summary, completeness, correctness, and conciseness; in a majority of cases, summaries from our best adapted LLMs are either equivalent (45%) or superior (36%) compared to summaries from medical experts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-14T05:15:01Z) - 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) - VBridge: Connecting the Dots Between Features, Explanations, and Data
for Healthcare Models [85.4333256782337]
VBridge is a visual analytics tool that seamlessly incorporates machine learning explanations into clinicians' decision-making workflow.
We identified three key challenges, including clinicians' unfamiliarity with ML features, lack of contextual information, and the need for cohort-level evidence.
We demonstrated the effectiveness of VBridge through two case studies and expert interviews with four clinicians.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2021-08-04T17:34:13Z)
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.