Humans Continue to Outperform Large Language Models in Complex Clinical Decision-Making: A Study with Medical Calculators

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2411.05897v1
• Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2024 15:50:19 GMT
• Title: Humans Continue to Outperform Large Language Models in Complex Clinical Decision-Making: A Study with Medical Calculators
• Authors: Nicholas Wan, Qiao Jin, Joey Chan, Guangzhi Xiong, Serina Applebaum, Aidan Gilson, Reid McMurry, R. Andrew Taylor, Aidong Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhiyong Lu,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using medical licensing exams. We evaluate the capability of both medical trainees and LLMs to recommend medical calculators.
• Score: 20.782328949004434
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
• Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using medical licensing exams, their ability to effectively support clinical decision-making tasks, such as selecting and using medical calculators, remains uncertain. Here, we evaluate the capability of both medical trainees and LLMs to recommend medical calculators in response to various multiple-choice clinical scenarios such as risk stratification, prognosis, and disease diagnosis. We assessed eight LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and measured human performance on a subset of 100 questions. While the highest-performing LLM, GPT-4o, provided an answer accuracy of 74.3% (CI: 71.5-76.9%), human annotators, on average, outperformed LLMs with an accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (56.6%) and calculator knowledge (8.1%), our findings emphasize that humans continue to surpass LLMs on complex clinical tasks such as calculator recommendation.

Related papers

• Clinical knowledge in LLMs does not translate to human interactions [2.523178830945285]
  We tested if large language models (LLMs) can assist members of the public in identifying underlying conditions and choosing a course of action (disposition) in ten medical scenarios. Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average. Participants using the same LLMs identified relevant conditions in less than 34.5% of cases and disposition in less than 44.2%, both no better than the control group.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-26T13:32:49Z)
• It is Too Many Options: Pitfalls of Multiple-Choice Questions in Generative AI and Medical Education [0.7771252627207672]
  The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks is frequently cited as proof of their medical capabilities. We created a novel benchmark of free-response questions with paired MCQs (FreeMedQA) Using this benchmark, we evaluated three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and LLama-3-70B-instruct) and found an average absolute deterioration of 39.43% in performance on free-response questions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-13T19:42:04Z)
• 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)
• Fact or Guesswork? Evaluating Large Language Model's Medical Knowledge with Structured One-Hop Judgment [108.55277188617035]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in various downstream task domains, but their ability to directly recall and apply factual medical knowledge remains under-explored. Most existing medical QA benchmarks assess complex reasoning or multi-hop inference, making it difficult to isolate LLMs' inherent medical knowledge from their reasoning capabilities. We introduce the Medical Knowledge Judgment, a dataset specifically designed to measure LLMs' one-hop factual medical knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:27:51Z)
• Language Models And A Second Opinion Use Case: The Pocket Professional [0.0]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-27T23:48:47Z)
• oRetrieval Augmented Generation for 10 Large Language Models and its Generalizability in Assessing Medical Fitness [4.118721833273984]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) show potential for medical applications but often lack specialized clinical knowledge. Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) allows customization with domain-specific information, making it suitable for healthcare. This study evaluates the accuracy, consistency, and safety of RAG models in determining fitness for surgery and providing preoperative instructions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-11T00:34:20Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• End-To-End Clinical Trial Matching with Large Language Models [0.6151041580858937]
  We present an end-to-end pipeline for clinical trial matching using Large Language Models (LLMs) Our approach identifies relevant candidate trials in 93.3% of cases and achieves a preliminary accuracy of 88.0%. Our fully end-to-end pipeline can operate autonomously or with human supervision and is not restricted to oncology.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-18T12:36:26Z)
• MedCalc-Bench: Evaluating Large Language Models for Medical Calculations [18.8552481902506]
  Current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine are primarily focused on question-answering involving domain knowledge and descriptive reasoning. We propose MedCalc-Bench, a first-of-its-kind dataset focused on evaluating the medical calculation capability of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-17T19:07:21Z)
• Performance of large language models in numerical vs. semantic medical knowledge: Benchmarking on evidence-based Q&As [1.0034156461900003]
  Large language models (LLMs) show promising results in many aspects of language-based clinical practice. We used a comprehensive medical knowledge graph (encompassed data from more than 50,00 peer-reviewed articles) and created the "EBMQA" We benchmarked this dataset using more than 24,500 questions on two state-of-the-art LLMs: Chat-GPT4 and Claude3-Opus. We found that both LLMs excelled more in semantic than numerical QAs, with Claude3 surpassing GPT4 in numerical QAs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-06T08:41:46Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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)
• Benchmarking Large Language Models on CMExam -- A Comprehensive Chinese Medical Exam Dataset [31.047827145874844]
  We introduce CMExam, sourced from the Chinese National Medical Licensing Examination. CMExam consists of 60K+ multiple-choice questions for standardized and objective evaluations, as well as solution explanations for model reasoning evaluation in an open-ended manner. For in-depth analyses of LLMs, we invited medical professionals to label five additional question-wise annotations, including disease groups, clinical departments, medical disciplines, areas of competency, and question difficulty levels.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-05T16:48:41Z)
• Large Language Models Leverage External Knowledge to Extend Clinical Insight Beyond Language Boundaries [48.48630043740588]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Med-PaLM have excelled in various medical question-answering tasks. We develop a novel in-context learning framework to enhance their performance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-17T12:31:26Z)

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.