REVIEW 1 cited by
A Data-Centric Approach To Generate Faithful and High Quality Patient Summaries with Large Language Models
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
A Data-Centric Approach To Generate Faithful and High Quality Patient Summaries with Large Language Models
read the original abstract
Patients often face difficulties in understanding their hospitalizations, while healthcare workers have limited resources to provide explanations. In this work, we investigate the potential of large language models to generate patient summaries based on doctors' notes and study the effect of training data on the faithfulness and quality of the generated summaries. To this end, we release (i) a rigorous labeling protocol for errors in medical texts and (ii) a publicly available dataset of annotated hallucinations in 100 doctor-written and 100 generated summaries. We show that fine-tuning on hallucination-free data effectively reduces hallucinations from 2.60 to 1.55 per summary for Llama 2, while preserving relevant information. We observe a similar effect on GPT-4 (0.70 to 0.40), when the few-shot examples are hallucination-free. We also conduct a qualitative evaluation using hallucination-free and improved training data. We find that common quantitative metrics do not correlate well with faithfulness and quality. Finally, we test GPT-4 for automatic hallucination detection, which clearly outperforms common baselines.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
Mitigating hallucinations in healthcare LLMs with granular fact-checking and domain-specific adaptation
A deterministic, proposition-level fact-checker that compares clinical summaries against electronic health records via (entity, attribute, value, time) claims and hard-coded logical checks reports 0.8904 precision and...
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.