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.

MedG-KRP: Medical Graph Knowledge Representation Probing

Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful tools, finding many medical applications. LLMs' ability to coalesce vast amounts of information from many sources to generate a response-a process similar to that of a human expert-has led many to see potential in deploying LLMs for clinical use. However, medicine is a setting where accurate reasoning is paramount. Many researchers are questioning the effectiveness of multiple choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks, frequently used to test LLMs. Researchers and clinicians alike must have complete confidence in LLMs' abilities for them to be deployed in a medical setting. To address this need for understanding, we introduce a knowledge graph (KG)-based method to evaluate the biomedical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Essentially, we map how LLMs link medical concepts in order to better understand how they reason. We test GPT-4, Llama3-70b, and PalmyraMed-70b, a specialized medical model. We enlist a panel of medical students to review a total of 60 LLM-generated graphs and compare these graphs to BIOS, a large biomedical KG. We observe GPT-4 to perform best in our human review but worst in our ground truth comparison; vice-versa with PalmyraMed, the medical model. Our work provides a means of visualizing the medical reasoning pathways of LLMs so they can be implemented in clinical settings safely and effectively.