Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2312.10074

STAGER checklist: Standardized Testing and Assessment Guidelines for Evaluating Generative AI Reliability

Abstract

Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds immense potential in medical applications. Numerous studies have explored the efficacy of various generative AI models within healthcare contexts, but there is a lack of a comprehensive and systematic evaluation framework. Given that some studies evaluating the ability of generative AI for medical applications have deficiencies in their methodological design, standardized guidelines for their evaluation are also currently lacking. In response, our objective is to devise standardized assessment guidelines tailored for evaluating the performance of generative AI systems in medical contexts. To this end, we conducted a thorough literature review using the PubMed and Google Scholar databases, focusing on research that tests generative AI capabilities in medicine. Our multidisciplinary team, comprising experts in life sciences, clinical medicine, medical engineering, and generative AI users, conducted several discussion sessions and developed a checklist of 23 items. The checklist is designed to encompass the critical evaluation aspects of generative AI in medical applications comprehensively. This checklist, and the broader assessment framework it anchors, address several key dimensions, including question collection, querying methodologies, and assessment techniques. We aim to provide a holistic evaluation of AI systems. The checklist delineates a clear pathway from question gathering to result assessment, offering researchers guidance through potential challenges and pitfalls. Our framework furnishes a standardized, systematic approach for research involving the testing of generative AI's applicability in medicine. It enhances the quality of research reporting and aids in the evolution of generative AI in medicine and life sciences.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Jinghong Chen, Lingxuan Zhu, Weiming Mou, Zaoqu Liu, Quan Cheng, Anqi Lin, Jian Zhang, Peng Luo. 2023-12-08. STAGER checklist: Standardized Testing and Assessment Guidelines for Evaluating Generative AI Reliability. https://arxiv.org/abs/2312.10074

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC