SYNFAC-EDIT: Synthetic Imitation Edit Feedback for Factual Alignment in Clinical Summarization

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2402.13919v4
• Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2024 02:54:46 GMT
• Title: SYNFAC-EDIT: Synthetic Imitation Edit Feedback for Factual Alignment in Clinical Summarization
• Authors: Prakamya Mishra, Zonghai Yao, Parth Vashisht, Feiyun Ouyang, Beining Wang, Vidhi Dhaval Mody, Hong Yu,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant achievements in summarization tasks but struggle with factual inaccuracies. To counter the high costs and limited availability of expert-annotated data for factual alignment, this study introduces an innovative pipeline. We leverage 100B+ GPT variants to act as synthetic feedback experts offering expert-level edit feedback.
• Score: 6.130435789368263
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) such as GPT & Llama have demonstrated significant achievements in summarization tasks but struggle with factual inaccuracies, a critical issue in clinical NLP applications where errors could lead to serious consequences. To counter the high costs and limited availability of expert-annotated data for factual alignment, this study introduces an innovative pipeline that utilizes >100B parameter GPT variants like GPT-3.5 & GPT-4 to act as synthetic experts to generate high-quality synthetics feedback aimed at enhancing factual consistency in clinical note summarization. Our research primarily focuses on edit feedback generated by these synthetic feedback experts without additional human annotations, mirroring and optimizing the practical scenario in which medical professionals refine AI system outputs. Although such 100B+ parameter GPT variants have proven to demonstrate expertise in various clinical NLP tasks, such as the Medical Licensing Examination, there is scant research on their capacity to act as synthetic feedback experts and deliver expert-level edit feedback for improving the generation quality of weaker (<10B parameter) LLMs like GPT-2 (1.5B) & Llama 2 (7B) in clinical domain. So in this work, we leverage 100B+ GPT variants to act as synthetic feedback experts offering expert-level edit feedback, that is used to reduce hallucinations and align weaker (<10B parameter) LLMs with medical facts using two distinct alignment algorithms (DPO & SALT), endeavoring to narrow the divide between AI-generated content and factual accuracy. This highlights the substantial potential of LLM-based synthetic edits in enhancing the alignment of clinical factuality.

Related papers

• How Real Are Synthetic Therapy Conversations? Evaluating Fidelity in Prolonged Exposure Dialogues [11.227593857814364]
  Growing adoption of synthetic data in healthcare is driven by privacy concerns, limited access to real-world data, and the high cost of annotation. This work explores the use of synthetic Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapeutic conversations for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) We compare real and synthetic dialogues using linguistic, structural, and protocol-specific metrics, including turn-taking patterns and treatment fidelity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-30T16:56:56Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references. We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey. Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions. We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning. Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Prompt-Efficient Fine-Tuning for GPT-like Deep Models to Reduce Hallucination and to Improve Reproducibility in Scientific Text Generation Using Stochastic Optimisation Techniques [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly adopted for complex scientific text generation tasks. They often suffer from limitations in accuracy, consistency, and hallucination control. This thesis introduces a. ‘Fine-Tuning’ approach tailored for GPT-like models, aiming to mitigate hallucinations and enhance adapters.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-10T12:28:09Z)
• Improving Clinical Documentation with AI: A Comparative Study of Sporo AI Scribe and GPT-4o mini [0.0]
  Sporo Health's AI scribe was evaluated against OpenAI's GPT-4o Mini. Results show that Sporo AI consistently outperformed GPT-4o Mini, achieving higher recall, precision, and overall F1 scores.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-20T22:48:40Z)
• Unveiling the Flaws: Exploring Imperfections in Synthetic Data and Mitigation Strategies for Large Language Models [89.88010750772413]
  Synthetic data has been proposed as a solution to address the issue of high-quality data scarcity in the training of large language models (LLMs) Our work delves into these specific flaws associated with question-answer (Q-A) pairs, a prevalent type of synthetic data, and presents a method based on unlearning techniques to mitigate these flaws. Our work has yielded key insights into the effective use of synthetic data, aiming to promote more robust and efficient LLM training.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-18T08:38:59Z)
• Attribute Structuring Improves LLM-Based Evaluation of Clinical Text Summaries [62.32403630651586]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate accurate clinical text summaries, but still struggle with issues regarding grounding and evaluation. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using Attribute Structuring (AS), which structures the summary evaluation process. AS consistently improves the correspondence between human annotations and automated metrics in clinical text summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T21:59:03Z)
• 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)
• Leveraging Professional Radiologists' Expertise to Enhance LLMs' Evaluation for Radiology Reports [22.599250713630333]
  Our proposed method synergizes the expertise of professional radiologists with Large Language Models (LLMs) Our approach aligns LLM evaluations with radiologist standards, enabling detailed comparisons between human and AI generated reports. Experimental results show that our "Detailed GPT-4 (5-shot)" model achieves a 0.48 score, outperforming the METEOR metric by 0.19.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-29T21:24:43Z)
• Distilling Large Language Models for Matching Patients to Clinical Trials [3.4068841624198942]
  The recent success of large language models (LLMs) has paved the way for their adoption in the high-stakes domain of healthcare. This study presents the first systematic examination of the efficacy of both proprietary (GPT-3.5, and GPT-4) and open-source LLMs (LLAMA 7B,13B, and 70B) for the task of patient-trial matching. Our findings reveal that open-source LLMs, when fine-tuned on this limited and synthetic dataset, demonstrate performance parity with their proprietary counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-15T17:11:07Z)
• Synthetic Imitation Edit Feedback for Factual Alignment in Clinical Summarization [7.765365251963273]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional capabilities in capturing critical contextual information. LLMs sometimes generate factually hallucinated summaries, which can be extremely harmful in the clinical domain. We propose a new pipeline using ChatGPT instead of human experts to generate high-quality feedback data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T21:33:22Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models for Healthcare Data Augmentation: An Example on Patient-Trial Matching [49.78442796596806]
  We propose an innovative privacy-aware data augmentation approach for patient-trial matching (LLM-PTM) Our experiments demonstrate a 7.32% average improvement in performance using the proposed LLM-PTM method, and the generalizability to new data is improved by 12.12%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-24T03:14:00Z)
• Informing clinical assessment by contextualizing post-hoc explanations of risk prediction models in type-2 diabetes [50.8044927215346]
  We consider a comorbidity risk prediction scenario and focus on contexts regarding the patients clinical state. We employ several state-of-the-art LLMs to present contexts around risk prediction model inferences and evaluate their acceptability. Our paper is one of the first end-to-end analyses identifying the feasibility and benefits of contextual explanations in a real-world clinical use case.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-02-11T18:07:11Z)

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.