arXivDaily arXiv每日学术速递 周一至周五更新
arXiv周末暂无论文更新,休息一下吧,周末愉快~~
arXiv 2407.00541cs.CLcs.AIcs.IR
收藏

使用基于大语言模型的系统回答真实世界临床问题

Answering real-world clinical questions using large language model based systems

Atropos Health(阿特罗波斯健康公司);University of California, Los Angeles(加州大学洛杉矶分校);The Hospital for Sick Children(病童医院);University of California, San Diego(加州大学圣地亚哥分校);University of Michigan(密歇根大学);Columbia University(哥伦比亚大学);Stanford University(斯坦福大学)
Yen Sia Low, Michael L. Jackson, Rebecca J. Hyde, Robert E. Brown, Neil M. Sanghavi, Julian D. Baldwin, C. William Pike, Jananee Muralidharan, Gavin Hui, Natash… 展开作者

Yen Sia Low, Michael L. Jackson, Rebecca J. Hyde, Robert E. Brown, Neil M. Sanghavi, Julian D. Baldwin, C. William Pike, Jananee Muralidharan, Gavin Hui, Natasha Alexander, Hadeel Hassan, Rahul V. Nene, Morgan Pike, Courtney J. Pokrzywa, Shivam Vedak, Adam Paul Yan, Dong-han Yao, Amy R. Zipursky, Christina Dinh, Philip Ballentine, Dan C. Derieg, Vladimir Polony, Rehan N. Chawdry, Jordan Davies, Brigham B. Hyde, Nigam H. Shah, Saurabh Gombar

AI总结:

研究评估五个 LLM 系统回答 50 个真实临床问题的表现,发现通用 LLM 证据质量有限,而 RAG 与智能体式 ChatRWD 显著更优,二者协同可提升临床证据可得性。

摘要:

指导医疗决策的证据往往受到两方面限制:一是缺乏相关且可信的文献,二是难以将现有研究结合到具体患者的情境中。大语言模型(LLM)有可能通过总结已发表文献,或基于真实世界数据(RWD)生成新研究来应对这两项挑战。我们评估了五个基于 LLM 的系统回答 50 个临床问题的能力,并由九名独立医师从相关性、可靠性和可行动性三个方面审阅回答。就目前情况而言,通用 LLM(ChatGPT-4、Claude 3 Opus、Gemini Pro 1.5)很少生成被认为相关且有证据依据的回答(2%–10%)。相比之下,基于检索增强生成(RAG)和智能体式 LLM 的系统在 24%(OpenEvidence)至 58%(ChatRWD)的问题上生成了相关且有证据依据的回答。与其他 LLM 相比,只有智能体式 ChatRWD 能够回答新颖问题(65% 对 0–9%)。这些结果表明,尽管通用 LLM 不应按原样使用,但一个基于 RAG、专为证据总结构建的系统与一个用于生成新颖证据的系统协同工作,将提高患者护理中相关证据的可获得性。

英文摘要:

Evidence to guide healthcare decisions is often limited by a lack of relevant and trustworthy literature as well as difficulty in contextualizing existing research for a specific patient. Large language models (LLMs) could potentially address both challenges by either summarizing published literature or generating new studies based on real-world data (RWD). We evaluated the ability of five LLM-based systems in answering 50 clinical questions and had nine independent physicians review the responses for relevance, reliability, and actionability. As it stands, general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini Pro 1.5) rarely produced answers that were deemed relevant and evidence-based (2% - 10%). In contrast, retrieval augmented generation (RAG)-based and agentic LLM systems produced relevant and evidence-based answers for 24% (OpenEvidence) to 58% (ChatRWD) of questions. Only the agentic ChatRWD was able to answer novel questions compared to other LLMs (65% vs. 0-9%). These results suggest that while general-purpose LLMs should not be used as-is, a purpose-built system for evidence summarization based on RAG and one for generating novel evidence working synergistically would improve availability of pertinent evidence for patient care.

机构、总结、中文摘要均由AI分析而来,可能存在错误,请以论文正文为准。

↑