Building a Human-Verified Clinical Reasoning Dataset via a Human LLM Hybrid Pipeline for Trustworthy Medical AI

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2505.06912v1
• Date: Sun, 11 May 2025 09:17:28 GMT
• Title: Building a Human-Verified Clinical Reasoning Dataset via a Human LLM Hybrid Pipeline for Trustworthy Medical AI
• Authors: Chao Ding, Mouxiao Bian, Pengcheng Chen, Hongliang Zhang, Tianbin Li, Lihao Liu, Jiayuan Chen, Zhuoran Li, Yabei Zhong, Yongqi Liu, Haiqing Huang, Dongming Shan, Junjun He, Jie Xu,
• Abstract summary: This dataset includes 31,247 medical question-answer pairs, each accompanied by expert-validated chain-of-thought explanations.<n>This resource, spanning multiple clinical domains, was curated via a scalable human-LLM hybrid pipeline.
• Score: 23.060879967642027
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Despite strong performance in medical question-answering, the clinical adoption of Large Language Models (LLMs) is critically hampered by their opaque 'black-box' reasoning, limiting clinician trust. This challenge is compounded by the predominant reliance of current medical LLMs on corpora from scientific literature or synthetic data, which often lack the granular expert validation and high clinical relevance essential for advancing their specialized medical capabilities. To address these critical gaps, we introduce a highly clinically relevant dataset with 31,247 medical question-answer pairs, each accompanied by expert-validated chain-of-thought (CoT) explanations. This resource, spanning multiple clinical domains, was curated via a scalable human-LLM hybrid pipeline: LLM-generated rationales were iteratively reviewed, scored, and refined by medical experts against a structured rubric, with substandard outputs revised through human effort or guided LLM regeneration until expert consensus. This publicly available dataset provides a vital source for the development of medical LLMs that capable of transparent and verifiable reasoning, thereby advancing safer and more interpretable AI in medicine.

Related papers

• Can LLMs Support Medical Knowledge Imputation? An Evaluation-Based Perspective [1.4913052010438639]
  We have explored the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for imputing missing treatment relationships.<n>LLMs offer promising capabilities in knowledge augmentation, but their application in medical knowledge imputation presents significant risks.<n>Our findings highlight critical limitations, including inconsistencies with established clinical guidelines and potential risks to patient safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T02:52:17Z)
• TAMA: A Human-AI Collaborative Thematic Analysis Framework Using Multi-Agent LLMs for Clinical Interviews [54.35097932763878]
  Thematic analysis (TA) is a widely used qualitative approach for uncovering latent meanings in unstructured text data.<n>Here, we propose TAMA: A Human-AI Collaborative Thematic Analysis framework using Multi-Agent LLMs for clinical interviews.<n>We demonstrate that TAMA outperforms existing LLM-assisted TA approaches, achieving higher thematic hit rate, coverage, and distinctiveness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-26T15:58:16Z)
• 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)
• 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)
• An Active Inference Strategy for Prompting Reliable Responses from Large Language Models in Medical Practice [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are non-deterministic, may provide incorrect or harmful responses, and cannot be regulated to assure quality control. Our proposed framework refines LLM responses by restricting their primary knowledge base to domain-specific datasets containing validated medical information. We conducted a validation study where expert cognitive behaviour therapy for insomnia therapists evaluated responses from the LLM in a blind format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T05:00:18Z)
• Guiding Clinical Reasoning with Large Language Models via Knowledge Seeds [32.99251005719732]
  Clinical reasoning refers to the cognitive process that physicians employ in evaluating and managing patients. In this study, we introduce a novel framework, In-Context Padding (ICP), designed to enhance LLMs with medical knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-11T10:53:20Z)
• 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)
• Natural Language Programming in Medicine: Administering Evidence Based Clinical Workflows with Autonomous Agents Powered by Generative Large Language Models [29.05425041393475]
  Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant promise in healthcare. This study assessed the potential of LLMs to function as autonomous agents in a simulated tertiary care medical center.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-05T15:09:57Z)
• XAI for In-hospital Mortality Prediction via Multimodal ICU Data [57.73357047856416]
  We propose an efficient, explainable AI solution for predicting in-hospital mortality via multimodal ICU data. We employ multimodal learning in our framework, which can receive heterogeneous inputs from clinical data and make decisions. Our framework can be easily transferred to other clinical tasks, which facilitates the discovery of crucial factors in healthcare research.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-12-29T14:28:04Z)
• Large Language Models Illuminate a Progressive Pathway to Artificial Healthcare Assistant: A Review [16.008511195589925]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising capabilities in mimicking human-level language comprehension and reasoning. This paper provides a comprehensive review on the applications and implications of LLMs in medicine.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-11-03T13:51:36Z)
• Don't Ignore Dual Logic Ability of LLMs while Privatizing: A Data-Intensive Analysis in Medical Domain [19.46334739319516]
  We study how the dual logic ability of LLMs is affected during the privatization process in the medical domain. Our results indicate that incorporating general domain dual logic data into LLMs not only enhances LLMs' dual logic ability but also improves their accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T08:20:46Z)
• 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.