Learning to explain is a good biomedical few-shot learner
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MOTIVATION: Significant progress has been achieved in biomedical text mining using deep learning methods, which rely heavily on large amounts of high-quality data annotated by human experts. However, the reality is that obtaining high-quality annotated data is extremely challenging due to data scarcity (e.g. rare or new diseases), data privacy and security concerns, and the high cost of data annotation. Additionally, nearly all researches focus on predicting labels without providing corresponding explanations. Therefore, in this paper, we investigate a more realistic scenario, biomedical few-shot learning, and explore the impact of interpretability on biomedical few-shot learning. RESULTS: We present LetEx-Learning to explain-a novel multi-task generative approach that leverages reasoning explanations from large language models (LLMs) to enhance the inductive reasoning ability of few-shot learning. Our approach includes (1) collecting high-quality explanations by devising a suite of complete workflow based on LLMs through CoT prompting and self-training strategies, (2) converting various biomedical NLP tasks into a text-to-text generation task in a unified manner, where collected explanations serve as additional supervision between text-label pairs by multi-task training. Experiments are conducted on three few-shot settings across six biomedical benchmark datasets. The results show that learning to explain improves the performances of diverse biomedical NLP tasks in low-resource scenario, outperforming strong baseline models significantly by up to 6.41%. Notably, the proposed method makes the 220M LetEx perform superior reasoning explanation ability against LLMs. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION: Our source code and data are available at https://github.com/cpmss521/LetEx.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.009 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it