Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Language Models are Few-shot Learners for Prognostic Prediction

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

arxiv 2302.12692 v4 pith:J5INDAP7 submitted 2023-02-24 cs.CL cs.AIcs.LGq-bio.QM

classification cs.CLcs.AIcs.LGq-bio.QM
keywords languagemodelspredictionclinicalfew-shotprognostictransformersdifferent
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Clinical prediction is an essential task in the healthcare industry. However, the recent success of transformers, on which large language models are built, has not been extended to this domain. In this research, we explore the use of transformers and language models in prognostic prediction for immunotherapy using real-world patients' clinical data and molecular profiles. This paper investigates the potential of transformers to improve clinical prediction compared to conventional machine learning approaches and addresses the challenge of few-shot learning in predicting rare disease areas. The study benchmarks the efficacy of baselines and language models on prognostic prediction across multiple cancer types and investigates the impact of different pretrained language models under few-shot regimes. The results demonstrate significant improvements in accuracy and highlight the potential of NLP in clinical research to improve early detection and intervention for different diseases.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Objective Metrics for Evaluating Large Language Models Using External Data Sources

    cs.CL 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The submission is unverifiable because its abstract and full text describe two entirely different papers.

Pith tools