REVIEW 2 cited by
Can Large Language Models abstract Medical Coded Language?
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 become a pivotal research area, potentially making beneficial contributions in fields like healthcare where they can streamline automated billing and decision support. However, the frequent use of specialized coded languages like ICD-10, which are regularly updated and deviate from natural language formats, presents potential challenges for LLMs in creating accurate and meaningful latent representations. This raises concerns among healthcare professionals about potential inaccuracies or ``hallucinations" that could result in the direct impact of a patient. Therefore, this study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) are aware of medical code ontologies and can accurately generate names from these codes. We assess the capabilities and limitations of both general and biomedical-specific generative models, such as GPT, LLaMA-2, and Meditron, focusing on their proficiency with domain-specific terminologies. While the results indicate that LLMs struggle with coded language, we offer insights on how to adapt these models to reason more effectively.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Diagnosing our datasets: How does my language model learn clinical information?
The frequency of clinical jargon in pretraining corpora predicts how well open-source LLMs interpret that jargon, but hospital notes use abbreviations that appear only rarely online.
-
MorphologyFM: A Foundation Model for Morphology-Aware Representation Learning from ECG and Pulse Oximetry Waveforms
Morphology-aware masking plus cross-modal ECG–SpO2 pretraining on MIMIC yields stronger transfer than MAE, contrastive, Barlow Twins, and JEPA on several clinical prediction tasks.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.