ASTRID -- An Automated and Scalable TRIaD for the Evaluation of RAG-based Clinical Question Answering Systems

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2501.08208v1
• Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2025 15:46:39 GMT
• Title: ASTRID -- An Automated and Scalable TRIaD for the Evaluation of RAG-based Clinical Question Answering Systems
• Authors: Mohita Chowdhury, Yajie Vera He, Aisling Higham, Ernest Lim,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive potential in clinical question answering. RAG is emerging as a leading approach for ensuring the factual accuracy of model responses. Current automated RAG metrics perform poorly in clinical and conversational use cases.
• Score: 0.0
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown impressive potential in clinical question answering (QA), with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) emerging as a leading approach for ensuring the factual accuracy of model responses. However, current automated RAG metrics perform poorly in clinical and conversational use cases. Using clinical human evaluations of responses is expensive, unscalable, and not conducive to the continuous iterative development of RAG systems. To address these challenges, we introduce ASTRID - an Automated and Scalable TRIaD for evaluating clinical QA systems leveraging RAG - consisting of three metrics: Context Relevance (CR), Refusal Accuracy (RA), and Conversational Faithfulness (CF). Our novel evaluation metric, CF, is designed to better capture the faithfulness of a model's response to the knowledge base without penalising conversational elements. To validate our triad, we curate a dataset of over 200 real-world patient questions posed to an LLM-based QA agent during surgical follow-up for cataract surgery - the highest volume operation in the world - augmented with clinician-selected questions for emergency, clinical, and non-clinical out-of-domain scenarios. We demonstrate that CF can predict human ratings of faithfulness better than existing definitions for conversational use cases. Furthermore, we show that evaluation using our triad consisting of CF, RA, and CR exhibits alignment with clinician assessment for inappropriate, harmful, or unhelpful responses. Finally, using nine different LLMs, we demonstrate that the three metrics can closely agree with human evaluations, highlighting the potential of these metrics for use in LLM-driven automated evaluation pipelines. We also publish the prompts and datasets for these experiments, providing valuable resources for further research and development.

Related papers

• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment. We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews. Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Medchain: Bridging the Gap Between LLM Agents and Clinical Practice through Interactive Sequential Benchmarking [58.25862290294702]
  We present MedChain, a dataset of 12,163 clinical cases that covers five key stages of clinical workflow. We also propose MedChain-Agent, an AI system that integrates a feedback mechanism and a MCase-RAG module to learn from previous cases and adapt its responses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-02T15:25:02Z)
• Comprehensive and Practical Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems for Medical Question Answering [70.44269982045415]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) We introduce Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (MedRGB) that provides various supplementary elements to four medical QA datasets. Our experimental results reveals current models' limited ability to handle noise and misinformation in the retrieved documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T06:19:18Z)
• AGENT-CQ: Automatic Generation and Evaluation of Clarifying Questions for Conversational Search with LLMs [53.6200736559742]
  AGENT-CQ consists of two stages: a generation stage and an evaluation stage. CrowdLLM simulates human crowdsourcing judgments to assess generated questions and answers. Experiments on the ClariQ dataset demonstrate CrowdLLM's effectiveness in evaluating question and answer quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-25T17:06:27Z)
• RAGEval: Scenario Specific RAG Evaluation Dataset Generation Framework [69.4501863547618]
  This paper introduces RAGEval, a framework designed to assess RAG systems across diverse scenarios. With a focus on factual accuracy, we propose three novel metrics Completeness, Hallucination, and Irrelevance. Experimental results show that RAGEval outperforms zero-shot and one-shot methods in terms of clarity, safety, conformity, and richness of generated samples.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-02T13:35:11Z)
• ACR: A Benchmark for Automatic Cohort Retrieval [1.3547712404175771]
  Current cohort retrieval methods rely on automated queries of structured data combined with manual curation. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) and information retrieval (IR) offer promising avenues to revolutionize these systems. This paper introduces a new task, Automatic Cohort Retrieval (ACR), and evaluates the performance of LLMs and commercial, domain-specific neuro-symbolic approaches.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-20T23:04:06Z)
• AgentClinic: a multimodal agent benchmark to evaluate AI in simulated clinical environments [2.567146936147657]
  We introduce AgentClinic, a multimodal agent benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLM) in simulated clinical environments. We find that solving MedQA problems in the sequential decision-making format of AgentClinic is considerably more challenging, resulting in diagnostic accuracies that can drop to below a tenth of the original accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-13T17:38:53Z)
• 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)
• K-QA: A Real-World Medical Q&A Benchmark [12.636564634626422]
  We construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health. We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. We evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-25T20:11:04Z)
• Self-supervised Answer Retrieval on Clinical Notes [68.87777592015402]
  We introduce CAPR, a rule-based self-supervision objective for training Transformer language models for domain-specific passage matching. We apply our objective in four Transformer-based architectures: Contextual Document Vectors, Bi-, Poly- and Cross-encoders. We report that CAPR outperforms strong baselines in the retrieval of domain-specific passages and effectively generalizes across rule-based and human-labeled passages.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-08-02T10:42:52Z)

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.