从文献综述中得出的医疗保健领域大型语言模型人工评估框架

IF 12.4 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES NPJ Digital Medicine Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7
Thomas Yu Chow Tam, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Sumit Kapoor, Alisa V. Stolyar, Katelyn Polanska, Karleigh R. McCarthy, Hunter Osterhoudt, Xizhi Wu, Shyam Visweswaran, Sunyang Fu, Piyush Mathur, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Cong Sun, Yifan Peng, Yanshan Wang
{"title":"从文献综述中得出的医疗保健领域大型语言模型人工评估框架","authors":"Thomas Yu Chow Tam, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Sumit Kapoor, Alisa V. Stolyar, Katelyn Polanska, Karleigh R. McCarthy, Hunter Osterhoudt, Xizhi Wu, Shyam Visweswaran, Sunyang Fu, Piyush Mathur, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Cong Sun, Yifan Peng, Yanshan Wang","doi":"10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"With generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), continuing to make inroads in healthcare, assessing LLMs with human evaluations is essential to assuring safety and effectiveness. This study reviews existing literature on human evaluation methodologies for LLMs in healthcare across various medical specialties and addresses factors such as evaluation dimensions, sample types and sizes, selection, and recruitment of evaluators, frameworks and metrics, evaluation process, and statistical analysis type. Our literature review of 142 studies shows gaps in reliability, generalizability, and applicability of current human evaluation practices. To overcome such significant obstacles to healthcare LLM developments and deployments, we propose QUEST, a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of LLMs covering three phases of workflow: Planning, Implementation and Adjudication, and Scoring and Review. QUEST is designed with five proposed evaluation principles: Quality of Information, Understanding and Reasoning, Expression Style and Persona, Safety and Harm, and Trust and Confidence.","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":12.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01258-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review\",\"authors\":\"Thomas Yu Chow Tam, Sonish Sivarajkumar, Sumit Kapoor, Alisa V. Stolyar, Katelyn Polanska, Karleigh R. McCarthy, Hunter Osterhoudt, Xizhi Wu, Shyam Visweswaran, Sunyang Fu, Piyush Mathur, Giovanni E. Cacciamani, Cong Sun, Yifan Peng, Yanshan Wang\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"With generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), continuing to make inroads in healthcare, assessing LLMs with human evaluations is essential to assuring safety and effectiveness. This study reviews existing literature on human evaluation methodologies for LLMs in healthcare across various medical specialties and addresses factors such as evaluation dimensions, sample types and sizes, selection, and recruitment of evaluators, frameworks and metrics, evaluation process, and statistical analysis type. Our literature review of 142 studies shows gaps in reliability, generalizability, and applicability of current human evaluation practices. To overcome such significant obstacles to healthcare LLM developments and deployments, we propose QUEST, a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of LLMs covering three phases of workflow: Planning, Implementation and Adjudication, and Scoring and Review. QUEST is designed with five proposed evaluation principles: Quality of Information, Understanding and Reasoning, Expression Style and Persona, Safety and Harm, and Trust and Confidence.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19349,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NPJ Digital Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01258-7.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NPJ Digital Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01258-7\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-024-01258-7","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着生成式人工智能(GenAI),尤其是大型语言模型(LLM)在医疗保健领域的不断发展,通过人工评估对 LLM 进行评估对于确保其安全性和有效性至关重要。本研究回顾了医疗保健领域各专业 LLM 人类评估方法的现有文献,并探讨了评估维度、样本类型和大小、评估人员的选择和招聘、框架和度量标准、评估流程和统计分析类型等因素。我们对 142 项研究的文献综述显示,目前的人类评价实践在可靠性、普遍性和适用性方面存在差距。为了克服这些阻碍医疗保健 LLM 开发和部署的重大障碍,我们提出了 QUEST,这是一个全面而实用的 LLM 人类评估框架,涵盖工作流程的三个阶段:该框架涵盖三个阶段的工作流程:规划、实施和裁决以及评分和审核。QUEST 的设计包含五项拟议的评估原则:信息质量、理解与推理、表达风格与角色、安全与危害以及信任与信心。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
A framework for human evaluation of large language models in healthcare derived from literature review
With generative artificial intelligence (GenAI), particularly large language models (LLMs), continuing to make inroads in healthcare, assessing LLMs with human evaluations is essential to assuring safety and effectiveness. This study reviews existing literature on human evaluation methodologies for LLMs in healthcare across various medical specialties and addresses factors such as evaluation dimensions, sample types and sizes, selection, and recruitment of evaluators, frameworks and metrics, evaluation process, and statistical analysis type. Our literature review of 142 studies shows gaps in reliability, generalizability, and applicability of current human evaluation practices. To overcome such significant obstacles to healthcare LLM developments and deployments, we propose QUEST, a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of LLMs covering three phases of workflow: Planning, Implementation and Adjudication, and Scoring and Review. QUEST is designed with five proposed evaluation principles: Quality of Information, Understanding and Reasoning, Expression Style and Persona, Safety and Harm, and Trust and Confidence.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics. The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence awarded two Nobel Prizes for innovations that will shape the future of medicine Spatial resolution enhancement using deep learning improves chest disease diagnosis based on thick slice CT Learning from the EHR to implement AI in healthcare A data-driven framework for identifying patient subgroups on which an AI/machine learning model may underperform Phenotype driven molecular genetic test recommendation for diagnosing pediatric rare disorders
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1