The Clinicians’ Guide to Large Language Models: A General Perspective With a Focus on Hallucinations
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
Large language models (LLMs) are artificial intelligence tools that have the prospect of profoundly changing how we practice all aspects of medicine. Considering the incredible potential of LLMs in medicine and the interest of many health care stakeholders for implementation into routine practice, it is therefore essential that clinicians be aware of the basic risks associated with the use of these models. Namely, a significant risk associated with the use of LLMs is their potential to create hallucinations. Hallucinations (false information) generated by LLMs arise from a multitude of causes, including both factors related to the training dataset as well as their auto-regressive nature. The implications for clinical practice range from the generation of inaccurate diagnostic and therapeutic information to the reinforcement of flawed diagnostic reasoning pathways, as well as a lack of reliability if not used properly. To reduce this risk, we developed a general technical framework for approaching LLMs in general clinical practice, as well as for implementation on a larger institutional scale.
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 | 0.006 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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