Evaluating Large Language Models for Public Health Classification and Extraction Tasks

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2405.14766v2
• Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2025 14:11:10 GMT
• Title: Evaluating Large Language Models for Public Health Classification and Extraction Tasks
• Authors: Joshua Harris, Timothy Laurence, Leo Loman, Fan Grayson, Toby Nonnenmacher, Harry Long, Loes WalsGriffith, Amy Douglas, Holly Fountain, Stelios Georgiou, Jo Hardstaff, Kathryn Hopkins, Y-Ling Chi, Galena Kuyumdzhieva, Lesley Larkin, Samuel Collins, Hamish Mohammed, Thomas Finnie, Luke Hounsome, Michael Borowitz, Steven Riley,
• Abstract summary: We present evaluations of Large Language Models (LLMs) for public health tasks involving the classification and extraction of free text. We evaluate eleven open-weight LLMs across all tasks using zero-shot in-context learning. We find promising signs that LLMs may be useful tools for public health experts to extract information from a wide variety of free text sources.
• Score: 0.3545046504280562
• License:
• Abstract: Advances in Large Language Models (LLMs) have led to significant interest in their potential to support human experts across a range of domains, including public health. In this work we present automated evaluations of LLMs for public health tasks involving the classification and extraction of free text. We combine six externally annotated datasets with seven new internally annotated datasets to evaluate LLMs for processing text related to: health burden, epidemiological risk factors, and public health interventions. We evaluate eleven open-weight LLMs (7-123 billion parameters) across all tasks using zero-shot in-context learning. We find that Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct is the highest performing model, achieving the best results on 8/16 tasks (using micro-F1 scores). We see significant variation across tasks with all open-weight LLMs scoring below 60% micro-F1 on some challenging tasks, such as Contact Classification, while all LLMs achieve greater than 80% micro-F1 on others, such as GI Illness Classification. For a subset of 11 tasks, we also evaluate three GPT-4 and GPT-4o series models and find comparable results to Llama-3.3-70B-Instruct. Overall, based on these initial results we find promising signs that LLMs may be useful tools for public health experts to extract information from a wide variety of free text sources, and support public health surveillance, research, and interventions.

Related papers

• Unveiling Performance Challenges of Large Language Models in Low-Resource Healthcare: A Demographic Fairness Perspective [7.1047384702030625]
  We evaluate state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) with three prevalent learning frameworks across six diverse healthcare tasks. We find significant challenges in applying LLMs to real-world healthcare tasks and persistent fairness issues across demographic groups.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T18:52:30Z)
• Leveraging Large Language Models for Medical Information Extraction and Query Generation [2.1793134762413433]
  This paper introduces a system that integrates large language models (LLMs) into the clinical trial retrieval process. We evaluate six LLMs for query generation, focusing on open-source and relatively small models that require minimal computational resources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T12:01:51Z)
• Contextual Evaluation of Large Language Models for Classifying Tropical and Infectious Diseases [0.9798965031257411]
  We build on an opensource tropical and infectious diseases (TRINDs) dataset, expanding it to include demographic and semantic clinical and consumer augmentations yielding 11000+ prompts. We evaluate LLM performance on these, comparing generalist and medical LLMs, as well as LLM outcomes to human experts. We develop a prototype of TRINDs-LM, a research tool that provides a playground to navigate how context impacts LLM outputs for health.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-13T21:28:54Z)
• Assessing and Enhancing Large Language Models in Rare Disease Question-answering [64.32570472692187]
  We introduce a rare disease question-answering (ReDis-QA) dataset to evaluate the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) in diagnosing rare diseases. We collected 1360 high-quality question-answer pairs within the ReDis-QA dataset, covering 205 rare diseases. We then benchmarked several open-source LLMs, revealing that diagnosing rare diseases remains a significant challenge for these models. Experiment results demonstrate that ReCOP can effectively improve the accuracy of LLMs on the ReDis-QA dataset by an average of 8%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-15T21:09:09Z)
• D-NLP at SemEval-2024 Task 2: Evaluating Clinical Inference Capabilities of Large Language Models [5.439020425819001]
  Large language models (LLMs) have garnered significant attention and widespread usage due to their impressive performance in various tasks. However, they are not without their own set of challenges, including issues such as hallucinations, factual inconsistencies, and limitations in numerical-quantitative reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-07T10:11:14Z)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Generation and Evaluation Capabilities of Large Language Models for Instruction Controllable Summarization [132.25202059478065]
  We benchmark large language models (LLMs) on instruction controllable text summarization. Our study reveals that instruction controllable text summarization remains a challenging task for LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-15T18:25:26Z)
• Augmenting Black-box LLMs with Medical Textbooks for Biomedical Question Answering (Published in Findings of EMNLP 2024) [48.17095875619711]
  We present a system called LLMs Augmented with Medical Textbooks (LLM-AMT) LLM-AMT integrates authoritative medical textbooks into the LLMs' framework using plug-and-play modules. We found that medical textbooks as a retrieval corpus is proven to be a more effective knowledge database than Wikipedia in the medical domain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T13:39:38Z)
• MedAlign: A Clinician-Generated Dataset for Instruction Following with Electronic Medical Records [60.35217378132709]
  Large language models (LLMs) can follow natural language instructions with human-level fluency. evaluating LLMs on realistic text generation tasks for healthcare remains challenging. We introduce MedAlign, a benchmark dataset of 983 natural language instructions for EHR data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-27T12:24:39Z)
• Aligning Large Language Models with Human: A Survey [53.6014921995006]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) trained on extensive textual corpora have emerged as leading solutions for a broad array of Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks. Despite their notable performance, these models are prone to certain limitations such as misunderstanding human instructions, generating potentially biased content, or factually incorrect information. This survey presents a comprehensive overview of these alignment technologies, including the following aspects.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-24T17:44:58Z)
• 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)

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.