评估大语言模型在药学教育重症监护评估中的准确性和可重复性。

IF 4.7 Q2 COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence Pub Date : 2025-01-09 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.3389/frai.2024.1514896
Huibo Yang, Mengxuan Hu, Amoreena Most, W Anthony Hawkins, Brian Murray, Susan E Smith, Sheng Li, Andrea Sikora
{"title":"评估大语言模型在药学教育重症监护评估中的准确性和可重复性。","authors":"Huibo Yang, Mengxuan Hu, Amoreena Most, W Anthony Hawkins, Brian Murray, Susan E Smith, Sheng Li, Andrea Sikora","doi":"10.3389/frai.2024.1514896","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on medical licensing and diagnosis-related exams. However, comparative evaluations to optimize LLM performance and ability in the domain of comprehensive medication management (CMM) are lacking. The purpose of this evaluation was to test various LLMs performance optimization strategies and performance on critical care pharmacotherapy questions used in the assessment of Doctor of Pharmacy students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a comparative analysis using 219 multiple-choice pharmacotherapy questions, five LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude 2, Llama2-7b and 2-13b) were evaluated. Each LLM was queried five times to evaluate the primary outcome of accuracy (i.e., correctness). Secondary outcomes included variance, the impact of prompt engineering techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought, CoT) and training of a customized GPT on performance, and comparison to third year doctor of pharmacy students on knowledge recall vs. knowledge application questions. Accuracy and variance were compared with student's t-test to compare performance under different model settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4 exhibited the highest accuracy (71.6%), while Llama2-13b had the lowest variance (0.070). All LLMs performed more accurately on knowledge recall vs. knowledge application questions (e.g., ChatGPT-4: 87% vs. 67%). When applied to ChatGPT-4, few-shot CoT across five runs improved accuracy (77.4% vs. 71.5%) with no effect on variance. Self-consistency and the custom-trained GPT demonstrated similar accuracy to ChatGPT-4 with few-shot CoT. Overall pharmacy student accuracy was 81%, compared to an optimal overall LLM accuracy of 73%. Comparing question types, six of the LLMs demonstrated equivalent or higher accuracy than pharmacy students on knowledge recall questions (e.g., self-consistency vs. students: 93% vs. 84%), but pharmacy students achieved higher accuracy than all LLMs on knowledge application questions (e.g., self-consistency vs. students: 68% vs. 80%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT-4 was the most accurate LLM on critical care pharmacy questions and few-shot CoT improved accuracy the most. Average student accuracy was similar to LLMs overall, and higher on knowledge application questions. These findings support the need for future assessment of customized training for the type of output needed. Reliance on LLMs is only supported with recall-based questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":33315,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","volume":"7 ","pages":"1514896"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11754395/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating accuracy and reproducibility of large language model performance on critical care assessments in pharmacy education.\",\"authors\":\"Huibo Yang, Mengxuan Hu, Amoreena Most, W Anthony Hawkins, Brian Murray, Susan E Smith, Sheng Li, Andrea Sikora\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/frai.2024.1514896\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on medical licensing and diagnosis-related exams. However, comparative evaluations to optimize LLM performance and ability in the domain of comprehensive medication management (CMM) are lacking. The purpose of this evaluation was to test various LLMs performance optimization strategies and performance on critical care pharmacotherapy questions used in the assessment of Doctor of Pharmacy students.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a comparative analysis using 219 multiple-choice pharmacotherapy questions, five LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude 2, Llama2-7b and 2-13b) were evaluated. Each LLM was queried five times to evaluate the primary outcome of accuracy (i.e., correctness). Secondary outcomes included variance, the impact of prompt engineering techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought, CoT) and training of a customized GPT on performance, and comparison to third year doctor of pharmacy students on knowledge recall vs. knowledge application questions. Accuracy and variance were compared with student's t-test to compare performance under different model settings.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>ChatGPT-4 exhibited the highest accuracy (71.6%), while Llama2-13b had the lowest variance (0.070). All LLMs performed more accurately on knowledge recall vs. knowledge application questions (e.g., ChatGPT-4: 87% vs. 67%). When applied to ChatGPT-4, few-shot CoT across five runs improved accuracy (77.4% vs. 71.5%) with no effect on variance. Self-consistency and the custom-trained GPT demonstrated similar accuracy to ChatGPT-4 with few-shot CoT. Overall pharmacy student accuracy was 81%, compared to an optimal overall LLM accuracy of 73%. Comparing question types, six of the LLMs demonstrated equivalent or higher accuracy than pharmacy students on knowledge recall questions (e.g., self-consistency vs. students: 93% vs. 84%), but pharmacy students achieved higher accuracy than all LLMs on knowledge application questions (e.g., self-consistency vs. students: 68% vs. 80%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>ChatGPT-4 was the most accurate LLM on critical care pharmacy questions and few-shot CoT improved accuracy the most. Average student accuracy was similar to LLMs overall, and higher on knowledge application questions. These findings support the need for future assessment of customized training for the type of output needed. Reliance on LLMs is only supported with recall-based questions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":33315,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence\",\"volume\":\"7 \",\"pages\":\"1514896\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11754395/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1514896\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2024.1514896","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"COMPUTER SCIENCE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大型语言模型(llm)在医疗许可和诊断相关考试中表现出了令人印象深刻的表现。然而,在综合用药管理(CMM)领域,缺乏优化LLM绩效和能力的比较评估。本评估的目的是测试各种llm绩效优化策略和在药学博士学生评估中使用的重症监护药物治疗问题上的表现。方法:采用219道药物治疗选择题,对5个LLMs (GPT-3.5、GPT-4、Claude 2、Llama2-7b和2-13b)进行比较分析。每个LLM被查询五次,以评估准确性(即正确性)的主要结果。次要结果包括方差、提示工程技术(如思维链、CoT)和定制GPT培训对表现的影响,以及与药学博士三年级学生在知识回忆和知识应用问题上的比较。准确性和方差采用学生t检验比较不同模型设置下的性能。结果:ChatGPT-4的准确率最高(71.6%),Llama2-13b的方差最低(0.070)。所有法学硕士在知识回忆和知识应用问题上的表现都更准确(例如,ChatGPT-4: 87%对67%)。当应用于ChatGPT-4时,五次运行的少量CoT提高了准确性(77.4%对71.5%),对方差没有影响。自一致性和定制训练的GPT具有与ChatGPT-4相似的准确性。药学专业学生的总体准确率为81%,而法学硕士的最佳总体准确率为73%。比较问题类型,六个法学硕士在知识回忆问题上表现出与药学专业学生相同或更高的准确性(例如,自我一致性对学生:93%对84%),但药学专业学生在知识应用问题上的准确性高于所有法学硕士(例如,自我一致性对学生:68%对80%)。结论:ChatGPT-4是危重病药学问题最准确的LLM,而少射CoT提高准确性最多。总体而言,学生的平均准确率与法学硕士相似,在知识应用问题上更高。这些调查结果表明,今后有必要评估针对所需产出类型的定制培训。只有基于回忆的问题才支持对法学硕士的依赖。
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

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
Evaluating accuracy and reproducibility of large language model performance on critical care assessments in pharmacy education.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive performance on medical licensing and diagnosis-related exams. However, comparative evaluations to optimize LLM performance and ability in the domain of comprehensive medication management (CMM) are lacking. The purpose of this evaluation was to test various LLMs performance optimization strategies and performance on critical care pharmacotherapy questions used in the assessment of Doctor of Pharmacy students.

Methods: In a comparative analysis using 219 multiple-choice pharmacotherapy questions, five LLMs (GPT-3.5, GPT-4, Claude 2, Llama2-7b and 2-13b) were evaluated. Each LLM was queried five times to evaluate the primary outcome of accuracy (i.e., correctness). Secondary outcomes included variance, the impact of prompt engineering techniques (e.g., chain-of-thought, CoT) and training of a customized GPT on performance, and comparison to third year doctor of pharmacy students on knowledge recall vs. knowledge application questions. Accuracy and variance were compared with student's t-test to compare performance under different model settings.

Results: ChatGPT-4 exhibited the highest accuracy (71.6%), while Llama2-13b had the lowest variance (0.070). All LLMs performed more accurately on knowledge recall vs. knowledge application questions (e.g., ChatGPT-4: 87% vs. 67%). When applied to ChatGPT-4, few-shot CoT across five runs improved accuracy (77.4% vs. 71.5%) with no effect on variance. Self-consistency and the custom-trained GPT demonstrated similar accuracy to ChatGPT-4 with few-shot CoT. Overall pharmacy student accuracy was 81%, compared to an optimal overall LLM accuracy of 73%. Comparing question types, six of the LLMs demonstrated equivalent or higher accuracy than pharmacy students on knowledge recall questions (e.g., self-consistency vs. students: 93% vs. 84%), but pharmacy students achieved higher accuracy than all LLMs on knowledge application questions (e.g., self-consistency vs. students: 68% vs. 80%).

Conclusion: ChatGPT-4 was the most accurate LLM on critical care pharmacy questions and few-shot CoT improved accuracy the most. Average student accuracy was similar to LLMs overall, and higher on knowledge application questions. These findings support the need for future assessment of customized training for the type of output needed. Reliance on LLMs is only supported with recall-based questions.

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
6.10
自引率
2.50%
发文量
272
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊最新文献
A data-driven priority assessment and deployment framework for medical equipment maintenance in a tertiary hospital. Symmetry-guided explainable deep learning for colon cancer diagnosis: model benchmarking, cross-validation, statistical analysis, and explainability via ablation studies. A quantum-classical dual-track deep learning network for explainable Parkinson's disease classification. Application of an iterative generative AI-augmented teaching model in medical immunology education. Artificial intelligence for early endometrial cancer diagnosis using multimodal clinical data: integrating deep learning, explainability, and data privacy.
×
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学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
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