REVIEW 6 cited by
A Preliminary Study of o1 in Medicine: Are We Closer to an AI Doctor?
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities across various domains and tasks, pushing the boundaries of our knowledge in learning and cognition. The latest model, OpenAI's o1, stands out as the first LLM with an internalized chain-of-thought technique using reinforcement learning strategies. While it has demonstrated surprisingly strong capabilities on various general language tasks, its performance in specialized fields such as medicine remains unknown. To this end, this report provides a comprehensive exploration of o1 on different medical scenarios, examining 3 key aspects: understanding, reasoning, and multilinguality. Specifically, our evaluation encompasses 6 tasks using data from 37 medical datasets, including two newly constructed and more challenging question-answering (QA) tasks based on professional medical quizzes from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet. These datasets offer greater clinical relevance compared to standard medical QA benchmarks such as MedQA, translating more effectively into real-world clinical utility. Our analysis of o1 suggests that the enhanced reasoning ability of LLMs may (significantly) benefit their capability to understand various medical instructions and reason through complex clinical scenarios. Notably, o1 surpasses the previous GPT-4 in accuracy by an average of 6.2% and 6.6% across 19 datasets and two newly created complex QA scenarios. But meanwhile, we identify several weaknesses in both the model capability and the existing evaluation protocols, including hallucination, inconsistent multilingual ability, and discrepant metrics for evaluation. We release our raw data and model outputs at https://ucsc-vlaa.github.io/o1_medicine/ for future research.
Forward citations
Cited by 6 Pith papers
-
Scalable Stewardship of an LLM-Assisted Clinical Benchmark with Physician Oversight
Physician oversight reveals high error rates in LLM-generated labels for a clinical benchmark and demonstrates that corrected labels improve both evaluation accuracy and downstream model training.
-
A global log for medical AI
MedLog defines a nine-field, syslog-style event log for clinical AI, intended to support real-world surveillance and auditing; the four-deployment validation claimed in the abstract is absent from the body.
-
HuatuoGPT-o1, Towards Medical Complex Reasoning with LLMs
HuatuoGPT-o1 achieves superior medical complex reasoning by using a verifier to curate reasoning trajectories for fine-tuning and then applying RL with verifier-based rewards.
-
When Reasoning Hurts: Source-Aware Evaluation of Frontier LLMs for Clinical SOAP Note Generation
Non-reasoning GPT-5.4 outperforms its reasoning version on SOAP note quality across datasets, with RAG giving smaller model-dependent gains.
-
When Reasoning Hurts: Source-Aware Evaluation of Frontier LLMs for Clinical SOAP Note Generation
Enabling provider-native reasoning degraded GPT-5.4's SOAP-note quality on all three clinical dialogue datasets, and no reasoning-enabled configuration outperformed the best non-reasoning one.
-
QM-ToT: A Medical Tree of Thoughts Reasoning Framework for Quantized Model
QM-ToT applies Tree of Thoughts decomposition and evaluator layers to quantized LLMs, reporting accuracy gains from 34% to 50% on MedQAUSMLE for LLaMA2-70b and from 58.77% to 69.49% for LLaMA-3.1-8b, plus an 86.27% im...
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.