Evaluating ChatGPT as an Agent for Providing Genetic Education

Walton, Nephi; Gracefo, Sara; Sutherland, Nykole; Kozel, Beth A.; Danford, Christopher J.; McGrath, Scott P.

doi:10.1101/2023.10.25.564074

Cited by 4 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The substantial representation of generic healthcare applications, accounting for over a fifth of the studies, underscores the potential of LLMs in addressing needs applicable to many specialties, such as summarizing medical reports. In contrast, the scarcity of research in particular specialties like nuclear medicine (3 studies), physical medicine (2 studies), and medical genetics (1 study) suggests an untapped potential for using LLMs in these complex medical domains that often present intricate diagnostic challenges and demand personalized treatment approaches 65 66 67 68 . The lack of LLM-focused studies in these areas may indicate the need for increased awareness, collaboration, or specialized adaptation of such models to suit the unique demands of these specialties.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Testing and Evaluation of Healthcare Applications of Large Language Models (LLMs)

Bedi,

Liu,

Orr-Ewing

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Importance: Large Language Models (LLMs) can assist in a wide range of healthcare-related activities. Current approaches to evaluating LLMs make it difficult to identify the most impactful LLM application areas. Objective: To summarize the current evaluation of LLMs in healthcare in terms of 5 components: evaluation data type, healthcare task, Natural Language Processing (NLP)/Natural Language Understanding (NLU) task, dimension of evaluation, and medical specialty. Data Sources: A systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed for studies published between 01-01-2022 and 02-19-2024. Study Selection: Studies evaluating one or more LLMs in healthcare. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Three independent reviewers categorized 519 studies in terms of data used in the evaluation, the healthcare tasks (the what) and the NLP/NLU tasks (the how) examined, the dimension(s) of evaluation, and the medical specialty studied. Results: Only 5% of reviewed studies utilized real patient care data for LLM evaluation. The most popular healthcare tasks were assessing medical knowledge (e.g. answering medical licensing exam questions, 44.5%), followed by making diagnoses (19.5%), and educating patients (17.7%). Administrative tasks such as assigning provider billing codes (0.2%), writing prescriptions (0.2%), generating clinical referrals (0.6%) and clinical notetaking (0.8%) were less studied. For NLP/NLU tasks, the vast majority of studies examined question answering (84.2%). Other tasks such as summarization (8.9%), conversational dialogue (3.3%), and translation (3.1%) were infrequent. Almost all studies (95.4%) used accuracy as the primary dimension of evaluation; fairness, bias and toxicity (15.8%), robustness (14.8%), deployment considerations (4.6%), and calibration and uncertainty (1.2%) were infrequently measured. Finally, in terms of medical specialty area, most studies were in internal medicine (42%), surgery (11.4%) and ophthalmology (6.9%), with nuclear medicine (0.6%), physical medicine (0.4%) and medical genetics (0.2%) being the least represented. Conclusions and Relevance: Existing evaluations of LLMs mostly focused on accuracy of question answering for medical exams, without consideration of real patient care data. Dimensions like fairness, bias and toxicity, robustness, and deployment considerations received limited attention. To draw meaningful conclusions and improve LLM adoption, future studies need to establish a standardized set of LLM applications and evaluation dimensions, perform evaluations using data from routine care, and broaden testing to include administrative tasks as well as multiple medical specialties. Keywords: Large Language Models, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Healthcare, Dimensions of Evaluation, Evaluation Metrics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Systematic Review of Testing and Evaluation of Healthcare Applications of Large Language Models (LLMs)

Bedi,

Liu,

Orr-Ewing

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Testing and Evaluation of Health Care Applications of Large Language Models

Bedi,

Liu,

Orr-Ewing

et al. 2024

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ImportanceLarge language models (LLMs) can assist in various health care activities, but current evaluation approaches may not adequately identify the most useful application areas.ObjectiveTo summarize existing evaluations of LLMs in health care in terms of 5 components: (1) evaluation data type, (2) health care task, (3) natural language processing (NLP) and natural language understanding (NLU) tasks, (4) dimension of evaluation, and (5) medical specialty.Data SourcesA systematic search of PubMed and Web of Science was performed for studies published between January 1, 2022, and February 19, 2024.Study SelectionStudies evaluating 1 or more LLMs in health care.Data Extraction and SynthesisThree independent reviewers categorized studies via keyword searches based on the data used, the health care tasks, the NLP and NLU tasks, the dimensions of evaluation, and the medical specialty.ResultsOf 519 studies reviewed, published between January 1, 2022, and February 19, 2024, only 5% used real patient care data for LLM evaluation. The most common health care tasks were assessing medical knowledge such as answering medical licensing examination questions (44.5%) and making diagnoses (19.5%). Administrative tasks such as assigning billing codes (0.2%) and writing prescriptions (0.2%) were less studied. For NLP and NLU tasks, most studies focused on question answering (84.2%), while tasks such as summarization (8.9%) and conversational dialogue (3.3%) were infrequent. Almost all studies (95.4%) used accuracy as the primary dimension of evaluation; fairness, bias, and toxicity (15.8%), deployment considerations (4.6%), and calibration and uncertainty (1.2%) were infrequently measured. Finally, in terms of medical specialty area, most studies were in generic health care applications (25.6%), internal medicine (16.4%), surgery (11.4%), and ophthalmology (6.9%), with nuclear medicine (0.6%), physical medicine (0.4%), and medical genetics (0.2%) being the least represented.Conclusions and RelevanceExisting evaluations of LLMs mostly focus on accuracy of question answering for medical examinations, without consideration of real patient care data. Dimensions such as fairness, bias, and toxicity and deployment considerations received limited attention. Future evaluations should adopt standardized applications and metrics, use clinical data, and broaden focus to include a wider range of tasks and specialties.

show abstract