Can large language models provide useful feedback on research papers? A large-scale empirical analysis

Expert feedback lays the foundation of rigorous research. However, the rapid growth of scholarly production and intricate knowledge specialization challenge the conventional scientific feedback mechanisms. High-quality peer reviews are increasingly difficult to obtain. Researchers who are more junior or from under-resourced settings have especially hard times getting timely feedback. With the breakthrough of large language models (LLM) such as GPT-4, there is growing interest in using LLMs to generate scientific feedback on research manuscripts. However, the utility of LLM-generated feedback has not been systematically studied. To address this gap, we created an automated pipeline using GPT-4 to provide comments on the full PDFs of scientific papers. We evaluated the quality of GPT-4's feedback through two large-scale studies. We first quantitatively compared GPT-4's generated feedback with human peer reviewer feedback in 15 Nature family journals (3,096 papers in total) and the ICLR machine learning conference (1,709 papers). The overlap in the points raised by GPT-4 and by human reviewers (average overlap 30.85% for Nature journals, 39.23% for ICLR) is comparable to the overlap between two human reviewers (average overlap 28.58% for Nature journals, 35.25% for ICLR). The overlap between GPT-4 and human reviewers is larger for the weaker papers. We then conducted a prospective user study with 308 researchers from 110 US institutions in the field of AI and computational biology to understand how researchers perceive feedback generated by our GPT-4 system on their own papers. Overall, more than half (57.4%) of the users found GPT-4 generated feedback helpful/very helpful and 82.4% found it more beneficial than feedback from at least some human reviewers. While our findings show that LLM-generated feedback can help researchers, we also identify several limitations.

Missingness as Stability: Understanding the Structure of Missingness in Longitudinal EHR data and its Impact on Reinforcement Learning in Healthcare

There is an emerging trend in the reinforcement learning for healthcare literature. In order to prepare longitudinal, irregularly sampled, clinical datasets for reinforcement learning algorithms, many researchers will resample the time series data to short, regular intervals and use last-observation-carried-forward (LOCF) imputation to fill in these gaps. Typically, they will not maintain any explicit information about which values were imputed. In this work, we (1) call attention to this practice and discuss its potential implications; (2) propose an alternative representation of the patient state that addresses some of these issues; and (3) demonstrate in a novel but representative clinical dataset that our alternative representation yields consistently better results for achieving optimal control, as measured by off-policy policy evaluation, compared to representations that do not incorporate missingness information.

MURA: Large Dataset for Abnormality Detection in Musculoskeletal Radiographs

We introduce MURA, a large dataset of musculoskeletal radiographs containing 40,561 images from 14,863 studies, where each study is manually labeled by radiologists as either normal or abnormal. To evaluate models robustly and to get an estimate of radiologist performance, we collect additional labels from six board-certified Stanford radiologists on the test set, consisting of 207 musculoskeletal studies. On this test set, the majority vote of a group of three radiologists serves as gold standard. We train a 169-layer DenseNet baseline model to detect and localize abnormalities. Our model achieves an AUROC of 0.929, with an operating point of 0.815 sensitivity and 0.887 specificity. We compare our model and radiologists on the Cohen's kappa statistic, which expresses the agreement of our model and of each radiologist with the gold standard. Model performance is comparable to the best radiologist performance in detecting abnormalities on finger and wrist studies. However, model performance is lower than best radiologist performance in detecting abnormalities on elbow, forearm, hand, humerus, and shoulder studies. We believe that the task is a good challenge for future research. To encourage advances, we have made our dataset freely available at https://stanfordmlgroup.github.io/competitions/mura .

CheXNet: Radiologist-Level Pneumonia Detection on Chest X-Rays with Deep Learning

We develop an algorithm that can detect pneumonia from chest X-rays at a level exceeding practicing radiologists. Our algorithm, CheXNet, is a 121-layer convolutional neural network trained on ChestX-ray14, currently the largest publicly available chest X-ray dataset, containing over 100,000 frontal-view X-ray images with 14 diseases. Four practicing academic radiologists annotate a test set, on which we compare the performance of CheXNet to that of radiologists. We find that CheXNet exceeds average radiologist performance on the F1 metric. We extend CheXNet to detect all 14 diseases in ChestX-ray14 and achieve state of the art results on all 14 diseases.