REVIEW 2 cited by
Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark
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
The adoption of large language models (LLMs) to assist clinicians has attracted remarkable attention. Existing works mainly adopt the close-ended question-answering (QA) task with answer options for evaluation. However, many clinical decisions involve answering open-ended questions without pre-set options. To better understand LLMs in the clinic, we construct a benchmark ClinicBench. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. Furthermore, we construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice, e.g., open-ended decision-making, long document processing, and emerging drug analysis. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings. Finally, we invite medical experts to evaluate the clinical usefulness of LLMs. The benchmark data is available at https://github.com/AI-in-Health/ClinicBench.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
ImmunoFOMO: Are Language Models missing what oncologists see?
Small domain-specific language models identify fine-grained immunotherapy hallmarks in breast cancer abstracts more accurately than large language models do, while large models handle coarser categories better.
-
MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks
A clinician-validated taxonomy and 35-benchmark suite show that large language models vary widely across medical tasks, with reasoning models leading overall.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.