Repurposing the scientific literature with vision-language models

Research in AI for Science often focuses on using AI technologies to augment components of the scientific process, or in some cases, the entire scientific method; how about AI for scientific publications? Peer-reviewed journals are foundational repositories of specialized knowledge, written in discipline-specific language that differs from general Internet content used to train most large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs). We hypothesized that by combining a family of scientific journals with generative AI models, we could invent novel tools for scientific communication, education, and clinical care. We converted 23,000 articles from Neurosurgery Publications into a multimodal database - NeuroPubs - of 134 million words and 78,000 image-caption pairs to develop six datasets for building AI models. We showed that the content of NeuroPubs uniquely represents neurosurgery-specific clinical contexts compared with broader datasets and PubMed. For publishing, we employed generalist VLMs to automatically generate graphical abstracts from articles. Editorial board members rated 70% of these as ready for publication without further edits. For education, we generated 89,587 test questions in the style of the ABNS written board exam, which trainee and faculty neurosurgeons found indistinguishable from genuine examples 54% of the time. We used these questions alongside a curriculum learning process to track knowledge acquisition while training our 34 billion-parameter VLM (CNS-Obsidian). In a blinded, randomized controlled trial, we demonstrated the non-inferiority of CNS-Obsidian to GPT-4o (p = 0.1154) as a diagnostic copilot for a neurosurgical service. Our findings lay a novel foundation for AI with Science and establish a framework to elevate scientific communication using state-of-the-art generative artificial intelligence while maintaining rigorous quality standards.

Language Model Classifier Aligns Better with Physician Word Sensitivity than XGBoost on Readmission Prediction

Traditional evaluation metrics for classification in natural language processing such as accuracy and area under the curve fail to differentiate between models with different predictive behaviors despite their similar performance metrics. We introduce sensitivity score, a metric that scrutinizes models' behaviors at the vocabulary level to provide insights into disparities in their decision-making logic. We assess the sensitivity score on a set of representative words in the test set using two classifiers trained for hospital readmission classification with similar performance statistics. Our experiments compare the decision-making logic of clinicians and classifiers based on rank correlations of sensitivity scores. The results indicate that the language model's sensitivity score aligns better with the professionals than the xgboost classifier on tf-idf embeddings, which suggests that xgboost uses some spurious features. Overall, this metric offers a novel perspective on assessing models' robustness by quantifying their discrepancy with professional opinions. Our code is available on GitHub (https://github.com/nyuolab/Model_Sensitivity).