MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4396775553 · doi:10.2196/54633

A Reliable and Accessible Caregiving Language Model (CaLM) to Support Tools for Caregivers: Development and Evaluation Study

2024· article· en· W4396775553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Bambang Parmanto, Bayu Aryoyudanta, Timothius Wilbert Soekinto, I Made Agus Setiawan, Yuhan Wang, Haomin Hu, Andi Saptono, Yong Kyung Choi

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Formative Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTopic Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation ResearchAdministration for Community Living
KeywordsComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Set (abstract data type)Reliability (semiconductor)Family caregiversPsychologyMedicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In the United States, 1 in 5 adults currently serves as a family caregiver for an individual with a serious illness or disability. Unlike professional caregivers, family caregivers often assume this role without formal preparation or training. Thus, there is an urgent need to enhance the capacity of family caregivers to provide quality care. Leveraging technology as an educational tool or an adjunct to care is a promising approach that has the potential to enhance the learning and caregiving capabilities of family caregivers. Large language models (LLMs) can potentially be used as a foundation technology for supporting caregivers. An LLM can be categorized as a foundation model (FM), which is a large-scale model trained on a broad data set that can be adapted to a range of different domain tasks. Despite their potential, FMs have the critical weakness of "hallucination," where the models generate information that can be misleading or inaccurate. Information reliability is essential when language models are deployed as front-line help tools for caregivers. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to (1) develop a reliable caregiving language model (CaLM) by using FMs and a caregiving knowledge base, (2) develop an accessible CaLM using a small FM that requires fewer computing resources, and (3) evaluate the model's performance compared with a large FM. METHODS: We developed a CaLM using the retrieval augmented generation (RAG) framework combined with FM fine-tuning for improving the quality of FM answers by grounding the model on a caregiving knowledge base. The key components of the CaLM are the caregiving knowledge base, a fine-tuned FM, and a retriever module. We used 2 small FMs as candidates for the foundation of the CaLM (LLaMA [large language model Meta AI] 2 and Falcon with 7 billion parameters) and adopted a large FM (GPT-3.5 with an estimated 175 billion parameters) as a benchmark. We developed the caregiving knowledge base by gathering various types of documents from the internet. We focused on caregivers of individuals with Alzheimer disease and related dementias. We evaluated the models' performances using the benchmark metrics commonly used in evaluating language models and their reliability for providing accurate references with their answers. RESULTS: The RAG framework improved the performance of all FMs used in this study across all measures. As expected, the large FM performed better than the small FMs across all metrics. Interestingly, the small fine-tuned FMs with RAG performed significantly better than GPT 3.5 across all metrics. The fine-tuned LLaMA 2 with a small FM performed better than GPT 3.5 (even with RAG) in returning references with the answers. CONCLUSIONS: The study shows that a reliable and accessible CaLM can be developed using small FMs with a knowledge base specific to the caregiving domain.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Formative ResearchSame topicTopic ModelingFrench-language works237,207