MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389763594 · doi:10.1080/03007995.2023.2295411

The use of large language models in medicine: proceeding with caution

2023· article· en· W4389763594 on OpenAlexaff
Jiawen Deng, Areeba Zubair, Ye‐Jean Park, Eesha Affan, Qi Zuo

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Medical Research and Opinion · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia HospitalCarleton UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransparency (behavior)Consistency (knowledge bases)LiabilityInternet privacyComputer securityArtificial intelligenceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large language models, like ChatGPT and Bard, have potential clinical applications due to their ability to generate conversational responses and encode medical knowledge. However, their clinical adoption faces challenges including hallucinations, lack of transparency, and lack of consistency. Ethicolegal concerns surrounding patient consent, legal liability, and data privacy further complicate matters. Despite their promise, an optimistic but cautious approach is essential for the safe integration of large language models into clinical settings.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score0.333

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.624
GPT teacher head0.599
Teacher spread0.026 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Medical Research and OpinionSame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207