Answering real-world clinical questions using large language model based systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2407.00541v1
• Date: Sat, 29 Jun 2024 22:39:20 GMT
• Title: Answering real-world clinical questions using large language model based systems
• Authors: Yen Sia Low, Michael L. Jackson, Rebecca J. Hyde, Robert E. Brown, Neil M. Sanghavi, Julian D. Baldwin, C. William Pike, Jananee Muralidharan, Gavin Hui, Natasha Alexander, Hadeel Hassan, Rahul V. Nene, Morgan Pike, Courtney J. Pokrzywa, Shivam Vedak, Adam Paul Yan, Dong-han Yao, Amy R. Zipursky, Christina Dinh, Philip Ballentine, Dan C. Derieg, Vladimir Polony, Rehan N. Chawdry, Jordan Davies, Brigham B. Hyde, Nigam H. Shah, Saurabh Gombar,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) could potentially address both challenges by either summarizing published literature or generating new studies based on real-world data (RWD) We evaluated the ability of five LLM-based systems in answering 50 clinical questions and had nine independent physicians review the responses for relevance, reliability, and actionability.
• Score: 2.2605659089865355
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Evidence to guide healthcare decisions is often limited by a lack of relevant and trustworthy literature as well as difficulty in contextualizing existing research for a specific patient. Large language models (LLMs) could potentially address both challenges by either summarizing published literature or generating new studies based on real-world data (RWD). We evaluated the ability of five LLM-based systems in answering 50 clinical questions and had nine independent physicians review the responses for relevance, reliability, and actionability. As it stands, general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini Pro 1.5) rarely produced answers that were deemed relevant and evidence-based (2% - 10%). In contrast, retrieval augmented generation (RAG)-based and agentic LLM systems produced relevant and evidence-based answers for 24% (OpenEvidence) to 58% (ChatRWD) of questions. Only the agentic ChatRWD was able to answer novel questions compared to other LLMs (65% vs. 0-9%). These results suggest that while general-purpose LLMs should not be used as-is, a purpose-built system for evidence summarization based on RAG and one for generating novel evidence working synergistically would improve availability of pertinent evidence for patient care.

Related papers

• The Potential of LLMs in Medical Education: Generating Questions and Answers for Qualification Exams [9.802579169561781]
  Large language models (LLMs) can generate medical qualification exam questions and corresponding answers based on few-shot prompts. The study found that LLMs, after using few-shot prompts, can effectively mimic real-world medical qualification exam questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T09:33:37Z)
• Enhancing Large Language Models with Domain-specific Retrieval Augment Generation: A Case Study on Long-form Consumer Health Question Answering in Ophthalmology [34.82874325860935]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine may generate responses lacking supporting evidence based on hallucinated evidence. We developed a RAG pipeline with 70,000 ophthalmology-specific documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference time. We evaluated the responses including over 500 references of LLMs with and without RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-20T21:06:00Z)
• 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)
• GMAI-MMBench: A Comprehensive Multimodal Evaluation Benchmark Towards General Medical AI [67.09501109871351]
  Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) are capable of handling diverse data types such as imaging, text, and physiological signals. GMAI-MMBench is the most comprehensive general medical AI benchmark with well-categorized data structure and multi-perceptual granularity to date. It is constructed from 284 datasets across 38 medical image modalities, 18 clinical-related tasks, 18 departments, and 4 perceptual granularities in a Visual Question Answering (VQA) format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-06T17:59:21Z)
• How do you know that? Teaching Generative Language Models to Reference Answers to Biomedical Questions [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) have recently become the leading source of answers for users' questions online. Despite their ability to offer eloquent answers, their accuracy and reliability can pose a significant challenge. This paper introduces a biomedical retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system designed to enhance the reliability of generated responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-06T09:10:05Z)
• Hallucination Detection: Robustly Discerning Reliable Answers in Large Language Models [70.19081534515371]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained widespread adoption in various natural language processing tasks. They generate unfaithful or inconsistent content that deviates from the input source, leading to severe consequences. We propose a robust discriminator named RelD to effectively detect hallucination in LLMs' generated answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-04T18:47:42Z)
• Perception of Knowledge Boundary for Large Language Models through Semi-open-ended Question Answering [67.94354589215637]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are widely used for knowledge-seeking yet suffer from hallucinations. In this paper, we perceive the LLMs' knowledge boundary (KB) with semi-open-ended questions (SoeQ) We find that GPT-4 performs poorly on SoeQ and is often unaware of its KB. Our auxiliary model, LLaMA-2-13B, is effective in discovering more ambiguous answers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-23T10:00:14Z)
• 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)
• Quality of Answers of Generative Large Language Models vs Peer Patients for Interpreting Lab Test Results for Lay Patients: Evaluation Study [5.823006266363981]
  Large language models (LLMs) have opened a promising avenue for patients to get their questions answered. We generated responses to 53 questions from four LLMs including GPT-4, Meta LLaMA 2, MedAlpaca, and ORCA_mini. We find that GPT-4's responses are more accurate, helpful, relevant, and safer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-23T22:03:51Z)
• Rephrase and Respond: Let Large Language Models Ask Better Questions for Themselves [57.974103113675795]
  We present a method named Rephrase and Respond' (RaR) which allows Large Language Models to rephrase and expand questions posed by humans. RaR serves as a simple yet effective prompting method for improving performance. We show that RaR is complementary to the popular Chain-of-Thought (CoT) methods, both theoretically and empirically.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-07T18:43:34Z)
• 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.