Clinical knowledge in LLMs does not translate to human interactions

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18919v1
• Date: Sat, 26 Apr 2025 13:32:49 GMT
• Title: Clinical knowledge in LLMs does not translate to human interactions
• Authors: Andrew M. Bean, Rebecca Payne, Guy Parsons, Hannah Rose Kirk, Juan Ciro, Rafael Mosquera, Sara Hincapié Monsalve, Aruna S. Ekanayaka, Lionel Tarassenko, Luc Rocher, Adam Mahdi,
• Abstract summary: 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.<n>Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average.<n>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.
• Score: 2.523178830945285
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Global healthcare providers are exploring use of large language models (LLMs) to provide medical advice to the public. LLMs now achieve nearly perfect scores on medical licensing exams, but this does not necessarily translate to accurate performance in real-world settings. We tested if LLMs can assist members of the public in identifying underlying conditions and choosing a course of action (disposition) in ten medical scenarios in a controlled study with 1,298 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to receive assistance from an LLM (GPT-4o, Llama 3, Command R+) or a source of their choice (control). Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average. However, 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. We identify user interactions as a challenge to the deployment of LLMs for medical advice. Standard benchmarks for medical knowledge and simulated patient interactions do not predict the failures we find with human participants. Moving forward, we recommend systematic human user testing to evaluate interactive capabilities prior to public deployments in healthcare.

Related papers

• Enhancing Patient-Centric Communication: Leveraging LLMs to Simulate Patient Perspectives [19.462374723301792]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in role-playing scenarios. By mimicking human behavior, LLMs can anticipate responses based on concrete demographic or professional profiles. We evaluate the effectiveness of LLMs in simulating individuals with diverse backgrounds and analyze the consistency of these simulated behaviors.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-12T22:49:32Z)
• Humans and Large Language Models in Clinical Decision Support: A Study with Medical Calculators [20.782328949004434]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using licensing exams.<n>We assessed models with 1,009 multiple-choice question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators.<n>Two human annotators nominally outperformed LLMs with an average answer accuracy of 79.5%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-08T15:50:19Z)
• The Potential of LLMs in Medical Education: Generating Questions and Answers for Qualification Exams [13.469665087042614]
  Conventional medical education requires sophisticated clinicians to formulate questions and answers based on prototypes from EHRs.<n>We found that mainstream LLMs could generate questions and answers with real-world EHRs at levels close to clinicians.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-31T09:33:37Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized LLM on Physician Experience in Clinical Decision Support: A Comparison of Ask Avo and ChatGPT-4 [0.3999851878220878]
  Large language models (LLMs) to augment clinical decision support systems is a topic with growing interest. Current shortcomings such as hallucinations and lack of clear source citations make them unreliable for use in rapidly growing clinical environment. This study evaluates Ask Avo-derived software by AvoMD that incorporates a proprietary Model Augmented Language Retrieval system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T17:53:29Z)
• Towards Evaluating and Building Versatile Large Language Models for Medicine [57.49547766838095]
  We present MedS-Bench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the performance of large language models (LLMs) in clinical contexts. MedS-Bench spans 11 high-level clinical tasks, including clinical report summarization, treatment recommendations, diagnosis, named entity recognition, and medical concept explanation. MedS-Ins comprises 58 medically oriented language corpora, totaling 13.5 million samples across 122 tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-08-22T17:01:34Z)
• MedBench: A Comprehensive, Standardized, and Reliable Benchmarking System for Evaluating Chinese Medical Large Language Models [55.215061531495984]
  "MedBench" is a comprehensive, standardized, and reliable benchmarking system for Chinese medical LLM. First, MedBench assembles the largest evaluation dataset (300,901 questions) to cover 43 clinical specialties. Third, MedBench implements dynamic evaluation mechanisms to prevent shortcut learning and answer remembering.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-24T02:25:48Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• Auditing Algorithmic Fairness in Machine Learning for Health with Severity-Based LOGAN [70.76142503046782]
  We propose supplementing machine learning-based (ML) healthcare tools for bias with SLOGAN, an automatic tool for capturing local biases in a clinical prediction task. LOGAN adapts an existing tool, LOcal Group biAs detectioN, by contextualizing group bias detection in patient illness severity and past medical history. On average, SLOGAN identifies larger fairness disparities in over 75% of patient groups than LOGAN while maintaining clustering quality.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-16T08:04:12Z)

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.