LLM Sensitivity Evaluation Framework for Clinical Diagnosis

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.13475v1
• Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2025 05:35:11 GMT
• Title: LLM Sensitivity Evaluation Framework for Clinical Diagnosis
• Authors: Chenwei Yan, Xiangling Fu, Yuxuan Xiong, Tianyi Wang, Siu Cheung Hui, Ji Wu, Xien Liu,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across various domains.<n>For clinical diagnosis, higher expectations are required for LLM's reliability and sensitivity.
• Score: 10.448772462311027
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance across various domains. However, for clinical diagnosis, higher expectations are required for LLM's reliability and sensitivity: thinking like physicians and remaining sensitive to key medical information that affects diagnostic reasoning, as subtle variations can lead to different diagnosis results. Yet, existing works focus mainly on investigating the sensitivity of LLMs to irrelevant context and overlook the importance of key information. In this paper, we investigate the sensitivity of LLMs, i.e. GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Gemini, Claude3 and LLaMA2-7b, to key medical information by introducing different perturbation strategies. The evaluation results highlight the limitations of current LLMs in remaining sensitive to key medical information for diagnostic decision-making. The evolution of LLMs must focus on improving their reliability, enhancing their ability to be sensitive to key information, and effectively utilizing this information. These improvements will enhance human trust in LLMs and facilitate their practical application in real-world scenarios. Our code and dataset are available at https://github.com/chenwei23333/DiagnosisQA.

Related papers

• Medical large language models are easily distracted [0.8211696054238238]
  Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform medicine, but real-world clinical scenarios contain extraneous information that can hinder performance.<n>We developed MedDistractQA, a benchmark using USMLE-style questions embedded with simulated real-world distractions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-01T21:34:01Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• The Reliability of LLMs for Medical Diagnosis: An Examination of Consistency, Manipulation, and Contextual Awareness [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) offer promise for democratizing healthcare with advanced diagnostics. This study assesses their diagnostic reliability focusing on consistency, manipulation resilience, and contextual integration. LLMs' vulnerability to manipulation and limited contextual awareness pose challenges in clinical use.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-02T11:50:16Z)
• 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)
• Understanding the Role of LLMs in Multimodal Evaluation Benchmarks [77.59035801244278]
  This paper investigates the role of the Large Language Model (LLM) backbone in Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) evaluation. Our study encompasses four diverse MLLM benchmarks and eight state-of-the-art MLLMs. Key findings reveal that some benchmarks allow high performance even without visual inputs and up to 50% of error rates can be attributed to insufficient world knowledge in the LLM backbone.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-16T07:49:13Z)
• 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)
• MediQ: Question-Asking LLMs and a Benchmark for Reliable Interactive Clinical Reasoning [36.400896909161006]
  We develop systems that proactively ask questions to gather more information and respond reliably. We introduce a benchmark - MediQ - to evaluate question-asking ability in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-03T01:32:52Z)
• CLAMBER: A Benchmark of Identifying and Clarifying Ambiguous Information Needs in Large Language Models [60.59638232596912]
  We introduce CLAMBER, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) Building upon the taxonomy, we construct 12K high-quality data to assess the strengths, weaknesses, and potential risks of various off-the-shelf LLMs. Our findings indicate the limited practical utility of current LLMs in identifying and clarifying ambiguous user queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-20T14:34:01Z)
• Survey on Factuality in Large Language Models: Knowledge, Retrieval and Domain-Specificity [61.54815512469125]
  This survey addresses the crucial issue of factuality in Large Language Models (LLMs) As LLMs find applications across diverse domains, the reliability and accuracy of their outputs become vital.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-11T14:18:03Z)
• Deciphering Diagnoses: How Large Language Models Explanations Influence Clinical Decision Making [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are emerging as a promising tool to generate plain-text explanations for medical decisions. This study explores the effectiveness and reliability of LLMs in generating explanations for diagnoses based on patient complaints.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-03T00:08:23Z)
• Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self-Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models [4.8775268199830935]
  This study aims to assess the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) as a self-diagnostic tool and their role in spreading healthcare misinformation.<n>We use open-ended questions to mimic real-world self-diagnosis use cases, and perform sentence dropout to mimic realistic self-diagnosis with missing information.<n>The results highlight the modest capabilities of LLMs, as their responses are often unclear and inaccurate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T21:28:26Z)
• 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.