Search

Large language models (LLMs) represent a transformative class of AI tools capable of revolutionizing various aspects of healthcare by generating human-like responses across diverse contexts and adapting to novel tasks following human instructions. Their potential application spans a broad range of medical tasks, such as clinical documentation, matching patients to clinical trials, and answering medical questions. In this primer paper, we propose an actionable guideline to help healthcare professionals more efficiently utilize LLMs in their work, along with a set of best practices. This approach consists of several main phases, including formulating the task, choosing LLMs, prompt engineering, fine-tuning, and deployment. We start with the discussion of critical considerations in identifying healthcare tasks that align with the core capabilities of LLMs and selecting models based on the selected task and data, performance requirements, and model interface. We then review the strategies, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, to adapt standard LLMs to specialized medical tasks. Deployment considerations, including regulatory compliance, ethical guidelines, and continuous monitoring for fairness and bias, are also discussed. By providing a structured step-by-step methodology, this tutorial aims to equip healthcare professionals with the tools necessary to effectively integrate LLMs into clinical practice, ensuring that these powerful technologies are applied in a safe, reliable, and impactful manner.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are poised to revolutionize healthcare. Ophthalmology-specific LLMs remain scarce and underexplored. We introduced an open-source, specialized LLM for ophthalmology, termed Language Enhanced Model for Eye (LEME). LEME was initially pre-trained on the Llama2 70B framework and further fine-tuned with a corpus of ~127,000 non-copyrighted training instances curated from ophthalmology-specific case reports, abstracts, and open-source study materials. We benchmarked LEME against eight other LLMs, namely, GPT-3.5, GPT-4, three Llama2 models (7B, 13B, 70B), PMC-LLAMA 13B, Meditron 70B, and EYE-Llama (another ophthalmology-specific LLM). Evaluations included four internal validation tasks: abstract completion, fill-in-the-blank, multiple-choice questions (MCQ), and short-answer QA. External validation tasks encompassed long-form QA, MCQ, patient EHR summarization, and clinical QA. Evaluation metrics included Rouge-L scores, accuracy, and expert evaluation of correctness, completeness, and readability. In internal validations, LEME consistently outperformed its counterparts, achieving Rouge-L scores of 0.20 in abstract completion (all p<0.05), 0.82 in fill-in-the-blank (all p<0.0001), and 0.22 in short-answer QA (all p<0.0001, except versus GPT-4). In external validations, LEME excelled in long-form QA with a Rouge-L of 0.19 (all p<0.0001), ranked second in MCQ accuracy (0.68; all p<0.0001), and scored highest in EHR summarization and clinical QA (ranging from 4.24 to 4.83 out of 5 for correctness, completeness, and readability). LEME's emphasis on robust fine-tuning and the use of non-copyrighted data represents a breakthrough in open-source ophthalmology-specific LLMs, offering the potential to revolutionize execution of clinical tasks while democratizing research collaboration.

Despite the potential of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine, they may generate responses lacking supporting evidence or based on hallucinated evidence. While Retrieval Augment Generation (RAG) is popular to address this issue, few studies implemented and evaluated RAG in downstream domain-specific applications. We developed a RAG pipeline with 70,000 ophthalmology-specific documents that retrieve relevant documents to augment LLMs during inference time. In a case study on long-form consumer health questions, we systematically evaluated the responses including over 500 references of LLMs with and without RAG on 100 questions with 10 healthcare professionals. The evaluation focuses on factuality of evidence, selection and ranking of evidence, attribution of evidence, and answer accuracy and completeness. LLMs without RAG provided 252 references in total. Of which, 45.3% hallucinated, 34.1% consisted of minor errors, and 20.6% were correct. In contrast, LLMs with RAG significantly improved accuracy (54.5% being correct) and reduced error rates (18.8% with minor hallucinations and 26.7% with errors). 62.5% of the top 10 documents retrieved by RAG were selected as the top references in the LLM response, with an average ranking of 4.9. The use of RAG also improved evidence attribution (increasing from 1.85 to 2.49 on a 5-point scale, P<0.001), albeit with slight decreases in accuracy (from 3.52 to 3.23, P=0.03) and completeness (from 3.47 to 3.27, P=0.17). The results demonstrate that LLMs frequently exhibited hallucinated and erroneous evidence in the responses, raising concerns for downstream applications in the medical domain. RAG substantially reduced the proportion of such evidence but encountered challenges.

As opposed to evaluating computation and logic-based reasoning, current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine are primarily focused on question-answering involving domain knowledge and descriptive reasoning. While such qualitative capabilities are vital to medical diagnosis, in real-world scenarios, doctors frequently use clinical calculators that follow quantitative equations and rule-based reasoning paradigms for evidence-based decision support. To this end, we propose MedCalc-Bench, a first-of-its-kind dataset focused on evaluating the medical calculation capability of LLMs. MedCalc-Bench contains an evaluation set of over 1000 manually reviewed instances from 55 different medical calculation tasks. Each instance in MedCalc-Bench consists of a patient note, a question requesting to compute a specific medical value, a ground truth answer, and a step-by-step explanation showing how the answer is obtained. While our evaluation results show the potential of LLMs in this area, none of them are effective enough for clinical settings. Common issues include extracting the incorrect entities, not using the correct equation or rules for a calculation task, or incorrectly performing the arithmetic for the computation. We hope our study highlights the quantitative knowledge and reasoning gaps in LLMs within medical settings, encouraging future improvements of LLMs for various clinical calculation tasks., Comment: Github link: https://github.com/ncbi-nlp/MedCalc-Bench HuggingFace link: https://huggingface.co/datasets/nsk7153/MedCalc-Bench

The biomedical literature is rapidly expanding, posing a significant challenge for manual curation and knowledge discovery. Biomedical Natural Language Processing (BioNLP) has emerged as a powerful solution, enabling the automated extraction of information and knowledge from this extensive literature. Recent attention has been directed towards Large Language Models (LLMs) due to their impressive performance. However, there remains a critical gap in understanding the effectiveness of LLMs in BioNLP tasks and their broader implications for method development and downstream users. Currently, there is a lack of baseline performance data, benchmarks, and practical recommendations for using LLMs in the biomedical domain. To address this gap, we present a systematic evaluation of four representative LLMs: GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 (closed-source), LLaMA 2 (open-sourced), and PMC LLaMA (domain-specific) across 12 BioNLP datasets covering six applications (named entity recognition, relation extraction, multi-label document classification, question answering, text summarization, and text simplification). The evaluation is conducted under four settings: zero-shot, static few-shot, dynamic K-nearest few-shot, and fine-tuning. We compare these models against state-of-the-art (SOTA) approaches that fine-tune (domain-specific) BERT or BART models, which are well-established methods in BioNLP tasks. The evaluation covers both quantitative and qualitative evaluations, where the latter involves manually reviewing collectively hundreds of thousands of LLM outputs for inconsistencies, missing information, and hallucinations in extractive and classification tasks. The qualitative review also examines accuracy, 1 completeness, and readability in text summarization tasks. Additionally, a cost analysis of closed-source GPT models is conducted.