A Literature Review and Framework for Human Evaluation of Generative Large Language Models in Healthcare
- URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.02559v1
- Date: Sat, 4 May 2024 04:16:07 GMT
- Title: A Literature Review and Framework for Human Evaluation of Generative Large Language Models in Healthcare
- Authors: Thomas Yu Chow Tam, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Sumit Kapoor, Alisa V Stolyar, Katelyn Polanska, Karleigh R McCarthy, Hunter Osterhoudt, Xizhi Wu, Shyam Visweswaran, Sunyang Fu, Piyush Mathur, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Cong Sun, Yifan Peng, Yanshan Wang,
- Abstract summary: generative artificial intelligence (AI) continues to permeate healthcare.
It remains crucial to supplement traditional automated evaluations with human expert evaluation.
The cumbersome, time-consuming, and non-standardized nature of human evaluation presents significant obstacles to the widespread adoption of Large Language Models in practice.
- Score: 11.28580626017631
- License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
- Abstract: As generative artificial intelligence (AI), particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), continues to permeate healthcare, it remains crucial to supplement traditional automated evaluations with human expert evaluation. Understanding and evaluating the generated texts is vital for ensuring safety, reliability, and effectiveness. However, the cumbersome, time-consuming, and non-standardized nature of human evaluation presents significant obstacles to the widespread adoption of LLMs in practice. This study reviews existing literature on human evaluation methodologies for LLMs within healthcare. We highlight a notable need for a standardized and consistent human evaluation approach. Our extensive literature search, adhering to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, spans publications from January 2018 to February 2024. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the human evaluation approaches used in diverse healthcare applications.This analysis examines the human evaluation of LLMs across various medical specialties, addressing factors such as evaluation dimensions, sample types, and sizes, the selection and recruitment of evaluators, frameworks and metrics, the evaluation process, and statistical analysis of the results. Drawing from diverse evaluation strategies highlighted in these studies, we propose a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of generative LLMs, named QUEST: Quality of Information, Understanding and Reasoning, Expression Style and Persona, Safety and Harm, and Trust and Confidence. This framework aims to improve the reliability, generalizability, and applicability of human evaluation of generative LLMs in different healthcare applications by defining clear evaluation dimensions and offering detailed guidelines.
Related papers
- ConSiDERS-The-Human Evaluation Framework: Rethinking Human Evaluation for Generative Large Language Models [53.00812898384698]
We argue that human evaluation of generative large language models (LLMs) should be a multidisciplinary undertaking.
We highlight how cognitive biases can conflate fluent information and truthfulness, and how cognitive uncertainty affects the reliability of rating scores such as Likert.
We propose the ConSiDERS-The-Human evaluation framework consisting of 6 pillars --Consistency, Scoring Critera, Differentiating, User Experience, Responsible, and Scalability.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-05-28T22:45:28Z) - A Comprehensive Survey on Evaluating Large Language Model Applications in the Medical Industry [2.1717945745027425]
Large Language Models (LLMs) have evolved significantly, impacting various industries with their advanced capabilities in language understanding and generation.
This comprehensive survey delineates the extensive application and requisite evaluation of LLMs within healthcare.
Our survey is structured to provide an in-depth analysis of LLM applications across clinical settings, medical text data processing, research, education, and public health awareness.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-04-24T09:55:24Z) - Towards Automatic Evaluation for LLMs' Clinical Capabilities: Metric, Data, and Algorithm [15.627870862369784]
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing interests to improve clinical efficiency for medical diagnosis.
We propose an automatic evaluation paradigm tailored to assess the LLMs' capabilities in delivering clinical services.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-25T06:17:54Z) - A Toolbox for Surfacing Health Equity Harms and Biases in Large Language Models [20.11590976578911]
Large language models (LLMs) hold immense promise to serve complex health information needs.
LLMs have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities.
Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2024-03-18T17:56:37Z) - Collaborative Evaluation: Exploring the Synergy of Large Language Models
and Humans for Open-ended Generation Evaluation [71.76872586182981]
Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as a scalable and cost-effective alternative to human evaluations.
We propose a Collaborative Evaluation pipeline CoEval, involving the design of a checklist of task-specific criteria and the detailed evaluation of texts.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z) - Foundation Metrics for Evaluating Effectiveness of Healthcare
Conversations Powered by Generative AI [38.497288024393065]
Generative Artificial Intelligence is set to revolutionize healthcare delivery by transforming traditional patient care into a more personalized, efficient, and proactive process.
This paper explores state-of-the-art evaluation metrics that are specifically applicable to the assessment of interactive conversational models in healthcare.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-09-21T19:36:48Z) - CValues: Measuring the Values of Chinese Large Language Models from
Safety to Responsibility [62.74405775089802]
We present CValues, the first Chinese human values evaluation benchmark to measure the alignment ability of LLMs.
As a result, we have manually collected adversarial safety prompts across 10 scenarios and induced responsibility prompts from 8 domains.
Our findings suggest that while most Chinese LLMs perform well in terms of safety, there is considerable room for improvement in terms of responsibility.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-19T01:22:40Z) - A Survey on Evaluation of Large Language Models [87.60417393701331]
Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing popularity in both academia and industry.
This paper focuses on three key dimensions: what to evaluate, where to evaluate, and how to evaluate.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-07-06T16:28:35Z) - Can Large Language Models Be an Alternative to Human Evaluations? [80.81532239566992]
Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated exceptional performance on unseen tasks when only the task instructions are provided.
We show that the result of LLM evaluation is consistent with the results obtained by expert human evaluation.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2023-05-03T07:28:50Z) - Revisiting the Gold Standard: Grounding Summarization Evaluation with
Robust Human Evaluation [136.16507050034755]
Existing human evaluation studies for summarization either exhibit a low inter-annotator agreement or have insufficient scale.
We propose a modified summarization salience protocol, Atomic Content Units (ACUs), which is based on fine-grained semantic units.
We curate the Robust Summarization Evaluation (RoSE) benchmark, a large human evaluation dataset consisting of 22,000 summary-level annotations over 28 top-performing systems.
arXiv Detail & Related papers (2022-12-15T17:26:05Z)
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.