Limitations of Large Language Models in Clinical Problem-Solving Arising from Inflexible Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2502.04381v1
• Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2025 18:14:27 GMT
• Title: Limitations of Large Language Models in Clinical Problem-Solving Arising from Inflexible Reasoning
• Authors: Jonathan Kim, Anna Podlasek, Kie Shidara, Feng Liu, Ahmed Alaa, Danilo Bernardo,
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) have attained human-level accuracy on medical question-answer (QA) benchmarks. Their limitations in navigating open-ended clinical scenarios have recently been shown. We present the medical abstraction and reasoning corpus (M-ARC) We find that LLMs, including current state-of-the-art o1 and Gemini models, perform poorly compared to physicians on M-ARC.
• Score: 3.3482359447109866
• License:
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have attained human-level accuracy on medical question-answer (QA) benchmarks. However, their limitations in navigating open-ended clinical scenarios have recently been shown, raising concerns about the robustness and generalizability of LLM reasoning across diverse, real-world medical tasks. To probe potential LLM failure modes in clinical problem-solving, we present the medical abstraction and reasoning corpus (M-ARC). M-ARC assesses clinical reasoning through scenarios designed to exploit the Einstellung effect -- the fixation of thought arising from prior experience, targeting LLM inductive biases toward inflexible pattern matching from their training data rather than engaging in flexible reasoning. We find that LLMs, including current state-of-the-art o1 and Gemini models, perform poorly compared to physicians on M-ARC, often demonstrating lack of commonsense medical reasoning and a propensity to hallucinate. In addition, uncertainty estimation analyses indicate that LLMs exhibit overconfidence in their answers, despite their limited accuracy. The failure modes revealed by M-ARC in LLM medical reasoning underscore the need to exercise caution when deploying these models in clinical settings.

Related papers

• 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)
• 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)
• Mitigating Hallucinations of Large Language Models in Medical Information Extraction via Contrastive Decoding [92.32881381717594]
  We introduce ALternate Contrastive Decoding (ALCD) to solve hallucination issues in medical information extraction tasks. ALCD demonstrates significant improvements in resolving hallucination issues compared to conventional decoding methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T07:19:19Z)
• 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)
• MEDIC: Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating LLMs in Clinical Applications [2.838746648891565]
  We introduce MEDIC, a framework assessing Large Language Models (LLMs) across five critical dimensions of clinical competence. We apply MEDIC to evaluate LLMs on medical question-answering, safety, summarization, note generation, and other tasks. Results show performance disparities across model sizes, baseline vs medically finetuned models, and have implications on model selection for applications requiring specific model strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T14:44:51Z)
• CLIMB: A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models [39.82307008221118]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. Their potential to exhibit bias poses significant risks to clinical equity. Currently, there is a lack of benchmarks that systematically evaluate such clinical bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T03:41:51Z)
• 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)
• CliBench: A Multifaceted and Multigranular Evaluation of Large Language Models for Clinical Decision Making [16.310913127940857]
  We introduce CliBench, a novel benchmark developed from the MIMIC IV dataset. This benchmark offers a comprehensive and realistic assessment of LLMs' capabilities in clinical diagnosis. We conduct a zero-shot evaluation of leading LLMs to assess their proficiency in clinical decision-making.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-14T11:10:17Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• 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.