Search arXivSearch

arXiv · 2403.16446

Towards Automatic Evaluation for LLMs' Clinical Capabilities: Metric, Data, and Algorithm

Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing interests to improve clinical efficiency for medical diagnosis, owing to their unprecedented performance in modelling natural language. Ensuring the safe and reliable clinical applications, the evaluation of LLMs indeed becomes critical for better mitigating the potential risks, e.g., hallucinations. However, current evaluation methods heavily rely on labor-intensive human participation to achieve human-preferred judgements. To overcome this challenge, we propose an automatic evaluation paradigm tailored to assess the LLMs' capabilities in delivering clinical services, e.g., disease diagnosis and treatment. The evaluation paradigm contains three basic elements: metric, data, and algorithm. Specifically, inspired by professional clinical practice pathways, we formulate a LLM-specific clinical pathway (LCP) to define the clinical capabilities that a doctor agent should possess. Then, Standardized Patients (SPs) from the medical education are introduced as the guideline for collecting medical data for evaluation, which can well ensure the completeness of the evaluation procedure. Leveraging these steps, we develop a multi-agent framework to simulate the interactive environment between SPs and a doctor agent, which is equipped with a Retrieval-Augmented Evaluation (RAE) to determine whether the behaviors of a doctor agent are in accordance with LCP. The above paradigm can be extended to any similar clinical scenarios to automatically evaluate the LLMs' medical capabilities. Applying such paradigm, we construct an evaluation benchmark in the field of urology, including a LCP, a SPs dataset, and an automated RAE. Extensive experiments are conducted to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed approach, providing more insights for LLMs' safe and reliable deployments in clinical practice.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lei Liu, Xiaoyan Yang, Fangzhou Li, Chenfei Chi, Yue Shen, Shiwei Lyu Ming Zhang, Xiaowei Ma, Xiangguo Lyu, Liya Ma, Zhiqiang Zhang, Wei Xue, Yiran Huang, Jinjie Gu. 2024-03-25. Towards Automatic Evaluation for LLMs' Clinical Capabilities: Metric, Data, and Algorithm. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.16446

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Universal Topological Regularity of Syntactic Structures

Despite their widespread use, the principles governing the organisation of syntactic dependency trees remain poorly understood. I analyse dependency trees from 124 typologically, genetically, and geographically diverse languages. Their topology departs systematically from randomness. Relative to uniformly sampled random trees, dependency trees exhibit greater structural robustness and lower branching heterogeneity. I propose that these universal regularities emerge naturally from incremental grammatical encoding. I model this process using sublinear preferential attachment. The model accurately reproduces the observed topology. More generally, the results demonstrate how a universal statistical property of syntax can emerge from a simple, cognitively motivated generative process. They further illustrate a broader principle of efficiency by construction: communicatively efficient syntactic structures can emerge without direct optimisation for communication.

cs.CL

An Incomplete Loop: Deductive, Inductive, and Abductive Reasoning in Language Models

Modern language models (LMs) can learn to perform new tasks in different ways: in instruction following, the target task is described explicitly in natural language; in few-shot prompting, the task is specified implicitly with a small number of examples; in instruction inference, LMs are presented with in-context examples and are then prompted to generate a natural language task description before making predictions. Each of these procedures may be thought of as invoking a different form of reasoning: instruction following involves deductive reasoning, few-shot prompting involves inductive reasoning, and instruction inference involves abductive reasoning. How do these different capabilities relate? Across four LMs (from the gpt and llama families) and two learning problems (involving arithmetic functions and machine translation) we find a strong dissociation between the different types of reasoning: LMs can sometimes learn effectively from few-shot prompts even when they are unable to explain their own prediction rules; conversely, they sometimes infer useful task descriptions while completely failing to learn from human-generated descriptions of the same task. Our results highlight the non-systematic nature of reasoning even in some of today's largest LMs, and underscore the fact that very different learning mechanisms may be invoked by seemingly similar prompting procedures.

cs.CL

Thinking beyond the anthropomorphic paradigm benefits LLM research

Anthropomorphism, or the attribution of human traits to technology, is an automatic and unconscious response that occurs even in those with advanced technical expertise. In this position paper, we analyze hundreds of thousands of research articles to present empirical evidence of the prevalence and growth of anthropomorphic terminology in research on large language models (LLMs). We argue for challenging the deeper assumptions reflected in this terminology -- which, though often useful, may inadvertently constrain LLM development -- and broadening beyond them to open new pathways for understanding and improving LLMs. Specifically, we identify and examine five anthropomorphic assumptions that shape research across the LLM development lifecycle. For each assumption (e.g., that LLMs must use natural language for reasoning, or that they should be evaluated on benchmarks originally meant for humans), we demonstrate empirical, non-anthropomorphic alternatives that remain under-explored yet offer promising directions for LLM research and development.

cs.CL