-
A Proposed S.C.O.R.E. Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models : Safety, Consensus, Objectivity, Reproducibility and Explainability
Authors:
Ting Fang Tan,
Kabilan Elangovan,
Jasmine Ong,
Nigam Shah,
Joseph Sung,
Tien Yin Wong,
Lan Xue,
Nan Liu,
Haibo Wang,
Chang Fu Kuo,
Simon Chesterman,
Zee Kin Yeong,
Daniel SW Ting
Abstract:
A comprehensive qualitative evaluation framework for large language models (LLM) in healthcare that expands beyond traditional accuracy and quantitative metrics needed. We propose 5 key aspects for evaluation of LLMs: Safety, Consensus, Objectivity, Reproducibility and Explainability (S.C.O.R.E.). We suggest that S.C.O.R.E. may form the basis for an evaluation framework for future LLM-based models…
▽ More
A comprehensive qualitative evaluation framework for large language models (LLM) in healthcare that expands beyond traditional accuracy and quantitative metrics needed. We propose 5 key aspects for evaluation of LLMs: Safety, Consensus, Objectivity, Reproducibility and Explainability (S.C.O.R.E.). We suggest that S.C.O.R.E. may form the basis for an evaluation framework for future LLM-based models that are safe, reliable, trustworthy, and ethical for healthcare and clinical applications.
△ Less
Submitted 10 July, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
-
Towards Clinical AI Fairness: Filling Gaps in the Puzzle
Authors:
Mingxuan Liu,
Yilin Ning,
Salinelat Teixayavong,
Xiaoxuan Liu,
Mayli Mertens,
Yuqing Shang,
Xin Li,
Di Miao,
Jie Xu,
Daniel Shu Wei Ting,
Lionel Tim-Ee Cheng,
Jasmine Chiat Ling Ong,
Zhen Ling Teo,
Ting Fang Tan,
Narrendar RaviChandran,
Fei Wang,
Leo Anthony Celi,
Marcus Eng Hock Ong,
Nan Liu
Abstract:
The ethical integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare necessitates addressing fairness-a concept that is highly context-specific across medical fields. Extensive studies have been conducted to expand the technical components of AI fairness, while tremendous calls for AI fairness have been raised from healthcare. Despite this, a significant disconnect persists between technical adva…
▽ More
The ethical integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in healthcare necessitates addressing fairness-a concept that is highly context-specific across medical fields. Extensive studies have been conducted to expand the technical components of AI fairness, while tremendous calls for AI fairness have been raised from healthcare. Despite this, a significant disconnect persists between technical advancements and their practical clinical applications, resulting in a lack of contextualized discussion of AI fairness in clinical settings. Through a detailed evidence gap analysis, our review systematically pinpoints several deficiencies concerning both healthcare data and the provided AI fairness solutions. We highlight the scarcity of research on AI fairness in many medical domains where AI technology is increasingly utilized. Additionally, our analysis highlights a substantial reliance on group fairness, aiming to ensure equality among demographic groups from a macro healthcare system perspective; in contrast, individual fairness, focusing on equity at a more granular level, is frequently overlooked. To bridge these gaps, our review advances actionable strategies for both the healthcare and AI research communities. Beyond applying existing AI fairness methods in healthcare, we further emphasize the importance of involving healthcare professionals to refine AI fairness concepts and methods to ensure contextually relevant and ethically sound AI applications in healthcare.
△ Less
Submitted 28 May, 2024;
originally announced May 2024.
-
Fine-tuning Large Language Model (LLM) Artificial Intelligence Chatbots in Ophthalmology and LLM-based evaluation using GPT-4
Authors:
Ting Fang Tan,
Kabilan Elangovan,
Liyuan Jin,
Yao Jie,
Li Yong,
Joshua Lim,
Stanley Poh,
Wei Yan Ng,
Daniel Lim,
Yuhe Ke,
Nan Liu,
Daniel Shu Wei Ting
Abstract:
Purpose: To assess the alignment of GPT-4-based evaluation to human clinician experts, for the evaluation of responses to ophthalmology-related patient queries generated by fine-tuned LLM chatbots. Methods: 400 ophthalmology questions and paired answers were created by ophthalmologists to represent commonly asked patient questions, divided into fine-tuning (368; 92%), and testing (40; 8%). We find…
▽ More
Purpose: To assess the alignment of GPT-4-based evaluation to human clinician experts, for the evaluation of responses to ophthalmology-related patient queries generated by fine-tuned LLM chatbots. Methods: 400 ophthalmology questions and paired answers were created by ophthalmologists to represent commonly asked patient questions, divided into fine-tuning (368; 92%), and testing (40; 8%). We find-tuned 5 different LLMs, including LLAMA2-7b, LLAMA2-7b-Chat, LLAMA2-13b, and LLAMA2-13b-Chat. For the testing dataset, additional 8 glaucoma QnA pairs were included. 200 responses to the testing dataset were generated by 5 fine-tuned LLMs for evaluation. A customized clinical evaluation rubric was used to guide GPT-4 evaluation, grounded on clinical accuracy, relevance, patient safety, and ease of understanding. GPT-4 evaluation was then compared against ranking by 5 clinicians for clinical alignment. Results: Among all fine-tuned LLMs, GPT-3.5 scored the highest (87.1%), followed by LLAMA2-13b (80.9%), LLAMA2-13b-chat (75.5%), LLAMA2-7b-Chat (70%) and LLAMA2-7b (68.8%) based on the GPT-4 evaluation. GPT-4 evaluation demonstrated significant agreement with human clinician rankings, with Spearman and Kendall Tau correlation coefficients of 0.90 and 0.80 respectively; while correlation based on Cohen Kappa was more modest at 0.50. Notably, qualitative analysis and the glaucoma sub-analysis revealed clinical inaccuracies in the LLM-generated responses, which were appropriately identified by the GPT-4 evaluation. Conclusion: The notable clinical alignment of GPT-4 evaluation highlighted its potential to streamline the clinical evaluation of LLM chatbot responses to healthcare-related queries. By complementing the existing clinician-dependent manual grading, this efficient and automated evaluation could assist the validation of future developments in LLM applications for healthcare.
△ Less
Submitted 15 February, 2024;
originally announced February 2024.
-
Towards clinical AI fairness: A translational perspective
Authors:
Mingxuan Liu,
Yilin Ning,
Salinelat Teixayavong,
Mayli Mertens,
Jie Xu,
Daniel Shu Wei Ting,
Lionel Tim-Ee Cheng,
Jasmine Chiat Ling Ong,
Zhen Ling Teo,
Ting Fang Tan,
Ravi Chandran Narrendar,
Fei Wang,
Leo Anthony Celi,
Marcus Eng Hock Ong,
Nan Liu
Abstract:
Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated the ability to extract insights from data, but the issue of fairness remains a concern in high-stakes fields such as healthcare. Despite extensive discussion and efforts in algorithm development, AI fairness and clinical concerns have not been adequately addressed. In this paper, we discuss the misalignment between technical and clinical perspectives o…
▽ More
Artificial intelligence (AI) has demonstrated the ability to extract insights from data, but the issue of fairness remains a concern in high-stakes fields such as healthcare. Despite extensive discussion and efforts in algorithm development, AI fairness and clinical concerns have not been adequately addressed. In this paper, we discuss the misalignment between technical and clinical perspectives of AI fairness, highlight the barriers to AI fairness' translation to healthcare, advocate multidisciplinary collaboration to bridge the knowledge gap, and provide possible solutions to address the clinical concerns pertaining to AI fairness.
△ Less
Submitted 26 April, 2023;
originally announced April 2023.
