LongHealth: A Question Answering Benchmark with Long Clinical Documents

Background: Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer potential benefits in healthcare, particularly in processing extensive patient records. However, existing benchmarks do not fully assess LLMs' capability in handling real-world, lengthy clinical data. Methods: We present the LongHealth benchmark, comprising 20 detailed fictional patient cases across various diseases, with each case containing 5,090 to 6,754 words. The benchmark challenges LLMs with 400 multiple-choice questions in three categories: information extraction, negation, and sorting, challenging LLMs to extract and interpret information from large clinical documents. Results: We evaluated nine open-source LLMs with a minimum of 16,000 tokens and also included OpenAI's proprietary and cost-efficient GPT-3.5 Turbo for comparison. The highest accuracy was observed for Mixtral-8x7B-Instruct-v0.1, particularly in tasks focused on information retrieval from single and multiple patient documents. However, all models struggled significantly in tasks requiring the identification of missing information, highlighting a critical area for improvement in clinical data interpretation. Conclusion: While LLMs show considerable potential for processing long clinical documents, their current accuracy levels are insufficient for reliable clinical use, especially in scenarios requiring the identification of missing information. The LongHealth benchmark provides a more realistic assessment of LLMs in a healthcare setting and highlights the need for further model refinement for safe and effective clinical application. We make the benchmark and evaluation code publicly available.

Generalist embedding models are better at short-context clinical semantic search than specialized embedding models

The increasing use of tools and solutions based on Large Language Models (LLMs) for various tasks in the medical domain has become a prominent trend. Their use in this highly critical and sensitive domain has thus raised important questions about their robustness, especially in response to variations in input, and the reliability of the generated outputs. This study addresses these questions by constructing a textual dataset based on the ICD-10-CM code descriptions, widely used in US hospitals and containing many clinical terms, and their easily reproducible rephrasing. We then benchmarked existing embedding models, either generalist or specialized in the clinical domain, in a semantic search task where the goal was to correctly match the rephrased text to the original description. Our results showed that generalist models performed better than clinical models, suggesting that existing clinical specialized models are more sensitive to small changes in input that confuse them. The highlighted problem of specialized models may be due to the fact that they have not been trained on sufficient data, and in particular on datasets that are not diverse enough to have a reliable global language understanding, which is still necessary for accurate handling of medical documents.

Coalitional strategies for efficient individual prediction explanation

As Machine Learning (ML) is now widely applied in many domains, in both research and industry, an understanding of what is happening inside the black box is becoming a growing demand, especially by non-experts of these models. Several approaches had thus been developed to provide clear insights of a model prediction for a particular observation but at the cost of long computation time or restrictive hypothesis that does not fully take into account interaction between attributes. This paper provides methods based on the detection of relevant groups of attributes -- named coalitions -- influencing a prediction and compares them with the literature. Our results show that these coalitional methods are more efficient than existing ones such as SHapley Additive exPlanation (SHAP). Computation time is shortened while preserving an acceptable accuracy of individual prediction explanations. Therefore, this enables wider practical use of explanation methods to increase trust between developed ML models, end-users, and whoever impacted by any decision where these models played a role.