Dataset Information

Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

We present the first study to investigate Large Language Models (LLMs) in answering radiation oncology physics questions. Because popular exams like AP Physics, LSAT, and GRE have large test-taker populations and ample test preparation resources in circulation, they may not allow for accurately assessing the true potential of LLMs. This paper proposes evaluating LLMs on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics, which may be more pertinent to scientific and medical communities in addition to being a valuable benchmark of LLMs.

Methods

We developed an exam consisting of 100 radiation oncology physics questions based on our expertise. Four LLMs, ChatGPT (GPT-3.5), ChatGPT (GPT-4), Bard (LaMDA), and BLOOMZ, were evaluated against medical physicists and non-experts. The performance of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was further explored by being asked to explain first, then answer. The deductive reasoning capability of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was evaluated using a novel approach (substituting the correct answer with "None of the above choices is the correct answer."). A majority vote analysis was used to approximate how well each group could score when working together.

Results

ChatGPT GPT-4 outperformed all other LLMs and medical physicists, on average, with improved accuracy when prompted to explain before answering. ChatGPT (GPT-3.5 and GPT-4) showed a high level of consistency in its answer choices across a number of trials, whether correct or incorrect, a characteristic that was not observed in the human test groups or Bard (LaMDA). In evaluating deductive reasoning ability, ChatGPT (GPT-4) demonstrated surprising accuracy, suggesting the potential presence of an emergent ability. Finally, although ChatGPT (GPT-4) performed well overall, its intrinsic properties did not allow for further improvement when scoring based on a majority vote across trials. In contrast, a team of medical physicists were able to greatly outperform ChatGPT (GPT-4) using a majority vote.

Conclusion

This study suggests a great potential for LLMs to work alongside radiation oncology experts as highly knowledgeable assistants.

SUBMITTER: Holmes J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10388568 | biostudies-literature | 2023

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics.

Holmes Jason J Liu Zhengliang Z Zhang Lian L Ding Yuzhen Y Sio Terence T TT McGee Lisa A LA Ashman Jonathan B JB Li Xiang X Liu Tianming T Shen Jiajian J Liu Wei W

Frontiers in oncology 20230717

<h4>Purpose</h4>We present the first study to investigate Large Language Models (LLMs) in answering radiation oncology physics questions. Because popular exams like AP Physics, LSAT, and GRE have large test-taker populations and ample test preparation resources in circulation, they may not allow for accurately assessing the true potential of LLMs. This paper proposes evaluating LLMs on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics, which may be more pertinent to scientific and medical c ...[more]

PMID: 37529688

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTechnological progress of machine learning and natural language processing has led to the development of large language models (LLMs), capable of producing well-formed text responses and providing natural language access to knowledge. Modern conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT have shown remarkable capabilities across a variety of fields, including medicine. These models may assess even highly specialized medical knowledge within specific disciplines, such as radiation therapy. We conducted an exploratory study to examine the capabilities of ChatGPT to answer questions in radiation therapy.Methods and materialsA set of multiple-choice questions about clinical, physics, and biology general knowledge in radiation oncology as well as a set of open-ended questions were created. These were given as prompts to the LLM ChatGPT, and the answers were collected and analyzed. For the multiple-choice questions, it was checked how many of the answers of the model could be clearly assigned to one of the allowed multiple-choice-answers, and the proportion of correct answers was determined. For the open-ended questions, independent blinded radiation oncologists evaluated the quality of the answers regarding correctness and usefulness on a 5-point Likert scale. Furthermore, the evaluators were asked to provide suggestions for improving the quality of the answers.ResultsFor 70 multiple-choice questions, ChatGPT gave valid answers in 66 cases (94.3%). In 60.61% of the valid answers, the selected answer was correct (50.0% of clinical questions, 78.6% of physics questions, and 58.3% of biology questions). For 25 open-ended questions, 12 answers of ChatGPT were considered as "acceptable," "good," or "very good" regarding both correctness and helpfulness by all 6 participating radiation oncologists. Overall, the answers were considered "very good" in 29.3% and 28%, "good" in 28% and 29.3%, "acceptable" in 19.3% and 19.3%, "bad" in 9.3% and 9.3%, and "very bad" in 14% and 14% regarding correctness/helpfulness.ConclusionsModern conversational LLMs such as ChatGPT can provide satisfying answers to many relevant questions in radiation therapy. As they still fall short of consistently providing correct information, it is problematic to use them for obtaining medical information. As LLMs will further improve in the future, they are expected to have an increasing impact not only on general society, but also on clinical practice, including radiation oncology.

Project description:ImportanceClinical interpretation of complex biomarkers for precision oncology currently requires manual investigations of previous studies and databases. Conversational large language models (LLMs) might be beneficial as automated tools for assisting clinical decision-making.ObjectiveTo assess performance and define their role using 4 recent LLMs as support tools for precision oncology.Design, setting, and participantsThis diagnostic study examined 10 fictional cases of patients with advanced cancer with genetic alterations. Each case was submitted to 4 different LLMs (ChatGPT, Galactica, Perplexity, and BioMedLM) and 1 expert physician to identify personalized treatment options in 2023. Treatment options were masked and presented to a molecular tumor board (MTB), whose members rated the likelihood of a treatment option coming from an LLM on a scale from 0 to 10 (0, extremely unlikely; 10, extremely likely) and decided whether the treatment option was clinically useful.Main outcomes and measuresNumber of treatment options, precision, recall, F1 score of LLMs compared with human experts, recognizability, and usefulness of recommendations.ResultsFor 10 fictional cancer patients (4 with lung cancer, 6 with other; median [IQR] 3.5 [3.0-4.8] molecular alterations per patient), a median (IQR) number of 4.0 (4.0-4.0) compared with 3.0 (3.0-5.0), 7.5 (4.3-9.8), 11.5 (7.8-13.0), and 13.0 (11.3-21.5) treatment options each was identified by the human expert and 4 LLMs, respectively. When considering the expert as a criterion standard, LLM-proposed treatment options reached F1 scores of 0.04, 0.17, 0.14, and 0.19 across all patients combined. Combining treatment options from different LLMs allowed a precision of 0.29 and a recall of 0.29 for an F1 score of 0.29. LLM-generated treatment options were recognized as AI-generated with a median (IQR) 7.5 (5.3-9.0) points in contrast to 2.0 (1.0-3.0) points for manually annotated cases. A crucial reason for identifying AI-generated treatment options was insufficient accompanying evidence. For each patient, at least 1 LLM generated a treatment option that was considered helpful by MTB members. Two unique useful treatment options (including 1 unique treatment strategy) were identified only by LLM.Conclusions and relevanceIn this diagnostic study, treatment options of LLMs in precision oncology did not reach the quality and credibility of human experts; however, they generated helpful ideas that might have complemented established procedures. Considering technological progress, LLMs could play an increasingly important role in assisting with screening and selecting relevant biomedical literature to support evidence-based, personalized treatment decisions.

Project description:ImportanceArtificial intelligence (AI) large language models (LLMs) demonstrate potential in simulating human-like dialogue. Their efficacy in accurate patient-clinician communication within radiation oncology has yet to be explored.ObjectiveTo determine an LLM's quality of responses to radiation oncology patient care questions using both domain-specific expertise and domain-agnostic metrics.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study retrieved questions and answers from websites (accessed February 1 to March 20, 2023) affiliated with the National Cancer Institute and the Radiological Society of North America. These questions were used as queries for an AI LLM, ChatGPT version 3.5 (accessed February 20 to April 20, 2023), to prompt LLM-generated responses. Three radiation oncologists and 3 radiation physicists ranked the LLM-generated responses for relative factual correctness, relative completeness, and relative conciseness compared with online expert answers. Statistical analysis was performed from July to October 2023.Main outcomes and measuresThe LLM's responses were ranked by experts using domain-specific metrics such as relative correctness, conciseness, completeness, and potential harm compared with online expert answers on a 5-point Likert scale. Domain-agnostic metrics encompassing cosine similarity scores, readability scores, word count, lexicon, and syllable counts were computed as independent quality checks for LLM-generated responses.ResultsOf the 115 radiation oncology questions retrieved from 4 professional society websites, the LLM performed the same or better in 108 responses (94%) for relative correctness, 89 responses (77%) for completeness, and 105 responses (91%) for conciseness compared with expert answers. Only 2 LLM responses were ranked as having potential harm. The mean (SD) readability consensus score for expert answers was 10.63 (3.17) vs 13.64 (2.22) for LLM answers (P < .001), indicating 10th grade and college reading levels, respectively. The mean (SD) number of syllables was 327.35 (277.15) for expert vs 376.21 (107.89) for LLM answers (P = .07), the mean (SD) word count was 226.33 (191.92) for expert vs 246.26 (69.36) for LLM answers (P = .27), and the mean (SD) lexicon score was 200.15 (171.28) for expert vs 219.10 (61.59) for LLM answers (P = .24).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, the LLM generated accurate, comprehensive, and concise responses with minimal risk of harm, using language similar to human experts but at a higher reading level. These findings suggest the LLM's potential, with some retraining, as a valuable resource for patient queries in radiation oncology and other medical fields.

Dataset Information

Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Evaluating large language models on a highly-specialized topic, radiation oncology physics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets