Give me Some Hard Questions: Synthetic Data Generation for Clinical QA

Clinical Question Answering (QA) systems enable doctors to quickly access patient information from electronic health records (EHRs). However, training these systems requires significant annotated data, which is limited due to the expertise needed and the privacy concerns associated with clinical data. This paper explores generating Clinical QA data using large language models (LLMs) in a zero-shot setting. We find that naive prompting often results in easy questions that do not reflect the complexity of clinical scenarios. To address this, we propose two prompting strategies: 1) instructing the model to generate questions that do not overlap with the input context, and 2) summarizing the input record using a predefined schema to scaffold question generation. Experiments on two Clinical QA datasets demonstrate that our method generates more challenging questions, significantly improving fine-tuning performance over baselines. We compare synthetic and gold data and find a gap between their training efficacy resulting from the quality of synthetically generated answers.

XAIQA: Explainer-Based Data Augmentation for Extractive Question Answering

Extractive question answering (QA) systems can enable physicians and researchers to query medical records, a foundational capability for designing clinical studies and understanding patient medical history. However, building these systems typically requires expert-annotated QA pairs. Large language models (LLMs), which can perform extractive QA, depend on high quality data in their prompts, specialized for the application domain. We introduce a novel approach, XAIQA, for generating synthetic QA pairs at scale from data naturally available in electronic health records. Our method uses the idea of a classification model explainer to generate questions and answers about medical concepts corresponding to medical codes. In an expert evaluation with two physicians, our method identifies $2.2\times$ more semantic matches and $3.8\times$ more clinical abbreviations than two popular approaches that use sentence transformers to create QA pairs. In an ML evaluation, adding our QA pairs improves performance of GPT-4 as an extractive QA model, including on difficult questions. In both the expert and ML evaluations, we examine trade-offs between our method and sentence transformers for QA pair generation depending on question difficulty.