Quality of Answers of Generative Large Language Models vs Peer Patients for Interpreting Lab Test Results for Lay Patients: Evaluation Study

Lab results are often confusing and hard to understand. Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have opened a promising avenue for patients to get their questions answered. We aim to assess the feasibility of using LLMs to generate relevant, accurate, helpful, and unharmful responses to lab test-related questions asked by patients and to identify potential issues that can be mitigated with augmentation approaches. We first collected lab test results related question and answer data from Yahoo! Answers and selected 53 QA pairs for this study. Using the LangChain framework and ChatGPT web portal, we generated responses to the 53 questions from four LLMs including GPT-4, Meta LLaMA 2, MedAlpaca, and ORCA_mini. We first assessed the similarity of their answers using standard QA similarity-based evaluation metrics including ROUGE, BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore. We also utilized an LLM-based evaluator to judge whether a target model has higher quality in terms of relevance, correctness, helpfulness, and safety than the baseline model. Finally, we performed a manual evaluation with medical experts for all the responses to seven selected questions on the same four aspects. The results of Win Rate and medical expert evaluation both showed that GPT-4's responses achieved better scores than all the other LLM responses and human responses on all four aspects (relevance, correctness, helpfulness, and safety). However, LLM responses occasionally also suffer from a lack of interpretation in one's medical context, incorrect statements, and lack of references. We find that compared to other three LLMs and human answer from the Q&A website, GPT-4's responses are more accurate, helpful, relevant, and safer. However, there are cases which GPT-4 responses are inaccurate and not individualized. We identified a number of ways to improve the quality of LLM responses.

Literature Based Discovery (LBD): Towards Hypothesis Generation and Knowledge Discovery in Biomedical Text Mining

Biomedical knowledge is growing in an astounding pace with a majority of this knowledge is represented as scientific publications. Text mining tools and methods represents automatic approaches for extracting hidden patterns and trends from this semi structured and unstructured data. In Biomedical Text mining, Literature Based Discovery (LBD) is the process of automatically discovering novel associations between medical terms otherwise mentioned in disjoint literature sets. LBD approaches proven to be successfully reducing the discovery time of potential associations that are hidden in the vast amount of scientific literature. The process focuses on creating concept profiles for medical terms such as a disease or symptom and connecting it with a drug and treatment based on the statistical significance of the shared profiles. This knowledge discovery approach introduced in 1989 still remains as a core task in text mining. Currently the ABC principle based two approaches namely open discovery and closed discovery are mostly explored in LBD process. This review starts with general introduction about text mining followed by biomedical text mining and introduces various literature resources such as MEDLINE, UMLS, MESH, and SemMedDB. This is followed by brief introduction of the core ABC principle and its associated two approaches open discovery and closed discovery in LBD process. This review also discusses the deep learning applications in LBD by reviewing the role of transformer models and neural networks based LBD models and its future aspects. Finally, reviews the key biomedical discoveries generated through LBD approaches in biomedicine and conclude with the current limitations and future directions of LBD.