A Multiassessment and Multiprofessional Agents Approach for Medical Chatbot Risk Estimation: Development and Evaluation Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND Assessing chatbot responses across 3 domains—medical, ethical, and legal—is essential to ensuring the safe use of artificial intelligence in health care. Although advancements in the use of large language models (LLMs) show significant improvements in evaluating question-answer datasets, such as multiple-choice medical exams, existing systems use general LLMs without incorporating specialized domain knowledge. They rely on standardized instructions without integrating real-world information, and ensemble methods such as majority voting fail to resolve disagreements among agents, resulting in misclassification and challenges in risk assessment. OBJECTIVE This study aims to design, develop, and evaluate a synergistic approach for assessing risks associated with chatbot responses using multiassessment (MA) and multiprofessional agents (MPAs). METHODS We designed and developed an approach consisting of MA and MPA, specifically initial assessment (MA1), which internalizes 3 roles and provides an initial risk estimation, and final assessment (MA3), which aims to reach a final consensus based on the previous assessments (MA1 and MA2), with each using 1 LLM. The verification assessment (MA2) incorporates an MPA or role-based LLM specialized agents for each risk domain (medical, ethical, and legal). We evaluated the proposed approach using the MedNLP-CHAT (Medical Natural Language Processing for AI Chat) corpus (N=226; 100 train, 126 test), covering baseline, enhanced prompt, embedding-based search, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG). Primary metrics included macro F1-score and joint accuracy to evaluate system performance, along with CI and paired macro F1-score difference (Δ) as supporting metrics to assess the approach’s effectiveness. RESULTS The MA-MPA framework integrated with RAG achieved the highest average macro F1-score of 0.800 across risk domains and a joint accuracy of 76 (60.3%) correct predictions across all risk domains out of 126 question-answer pairs, with notable improvements over the best reported Eighteenth NII Testbeds and Community for Information Access Research Project (NTCIR-18) MedNLP-CHAT systems in the ethical (+0.252) and legal (+0.096) risk domains, while the medical domain showed a modest increase of +0.070. The MA approach contributed the largest gains, particularly from MA1 to MA2, with paired macro F1-score gains ranging from +0.176 to +0.214 across systems. The MPA approach performed better when integrated with MA and external knowledge, with paired bootstrap estimates showing a gain of +0.037 (95% CI 0.003-0.074) over baseline; however, joint accuracy gains were not evident (95% CI –2.9% to 7.7%), and gains relative to the enhanced prompt were small. Notably, MA alone achieved higher joint accuracy than RAG (62.7% vs 60.3%), indicating a metric-specific trade-off rather than consistent superiority across all metrics. CONCLUSIONS The MA-MPA approach shows potential for improving risk estimation in chatbot responses. The results suggest that the framework is particularly useful for enhancing balanced overall performance, especially when combined with external knowledge, although the medical risk domain remains challenging. Furthermore, more specialized LLMs may further improve contextually grounded risk estimation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,015 | 0,030 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».