Language Models And A Second Opinion Use Case: The Pocket Professional

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2410.20636v1
• Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2024 23:48:47 GMT
• Title: Language Models And A Second Opinion Use Case: The Pocket Professional
• Authors: David Noever,
• Abstract summary: This research tests the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) as formal second opinion tools in professional decision-making. The work analyzed 183 challenging medical cases from Medscape over a 20-month period, testing multiple LLMs' performance against crowd-sourced physician responses.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: This research tests the role of Large Language Models (LLMs) as formal second opinion tools in professional decision-making, particularly focusing on complex medical cases where even experienced physicians seek peer consultation. The work analyzed 183 challenging medical cases from Medscape over a 20-month period, testing multiple LLMs' performance against crowd-sourced physician responses. A key finding was the high overall score possible in the latest foundational models (>80% accuracy compared to consensus opinion), which exceeds most human metrics reported on the same clinical cases (450 pages of patient profiles, test results). The study rates the LLMs' performance disparity between straightforward cases (>81% accuracy) and complex scenarios (43% accuracy), particularly in these cases generating substantial debate among human physicians. The research demonstrates that LLMs may be valuable as generators of comprehensive differential diagnoses rather than as primary diagnostic tools, potentially helping to counter cognitive biases in clinical decision-making, reduce cognitive loads, and thus remove some sources of medical error. The inclusion of a second comparative legal dataset (Supreme Court cases, N=21) provides added empirical context to the AI use to foster second opinions, though these legal challenges proved considerably easier for LLMs to analyze. In addition to the original contributions of empirical evidence for LLM accuracy, the research aggregated a novel benchmark for others to score highly contested question and answer reliability between both LLMs and disagreeing human practitioners. These results suggest that the optimal deployment of LLMs in professional settings may differ substantially from current approaches that emphasize automation of routine tasks.

Related papers

• The LLM Effect: Are Humans Truly Using LLMs, or Are They Being Influenced By Them Instead? [60.01746782465275]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown capabilities close to human performance in various analytical tasks. This paper investigates the efficiency and accuracy of LLMs in specialized tasks through a structured user study focusing on Human-LLM partnership.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-07T02:30:18Z)
• CliMedBench: A Large-Scale Chinese Benchmark for Evaluating Medical Large Language Models in Clinical Scenarios [50.032101237019205]
  CliMedBench is a comprehensive benchmark with 14 expert-guided core clinical scenarios. The reliability of this benchmark has been confirmed in several ways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:15:36Z)
• SemioLLM: Assessing Large Language Models for Semiological Analysis in Epilepsy Research [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models have shown promising results in their ability to encode general medical knowledge. We test the ability of state-of-the-art LLMs to leverage their internal knowledge and reasoning for epilepsy diagnosis.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Are Large Language Models True Healthcare Jacks-of-All-Trades? Benchmarking Across Health Professions Beyond Physician Exams [32.77551245372691]
  Existing benchmarks for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare predominantly focus on medical doctors. We introduce the Examinations for Medical Personnel in Chinese (EMPEC), a pioneering large-scale healthcare knowledge benchmark in traditional Chinese. EMPEC consists of 157,803 exam questions across 124 subjects and 20 healthcare professions, including underrepresented occupations like Optometrists and Audiologists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T08:40:36Z)
• Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark [63.21278434331952]
  We build a benchmark ClinicBench to better understand large language models (LLMs) in the clinic. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. We then construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T15:51:06Z)
• Med42 -- Evaluating Fine-Tuning Strategies for Medical LLMs: Full-Parameter vs. Parameter-Efficient Approaches [7.3384872719063114]
  We develop and refined a series of medical Large Language Models (LLMs) based on the Llama-2 architecture. Our experiments systematically evaluate the effectiveness of these tuning strategies across various well-known medical benchmarks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-23T06:36:21Z)
• Can LLMs Correct Physicians, Yet? Investigating Effective Interaction Methods in the Medical Domain [21.96129653695565]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) can assist and potentially correct physicians in medical decision-making tasks. We evaluate several LLMs, including Meditron, Llama2, and Mistral, to analyze the ability of these models to interact effectively with physicians across different scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-29T16:59:13Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• An Automatic Evaluation Framework for Multi-turn Medical Consultations Capabilities of Large Language Models [22.409334091186995]
  Large language models (LLMs) often suffer from hallucinations, leading to overly confident but incorrect judgments. This paper introduces an automated evaluation framework that assesses the practical capabilities of LLMs as virtual doctors during multi-turn consultations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-05T09:24:48Z)
• 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.