The challenge of uncertainty quantification of large language models in medicine

This study investigates uncertainty quantification in large language models (LLMs) for medical applications, emphasizing both technical innovations and philosophical implications. As LLMs become integral to clinical decision-making, accurately communicating uncertainty is crucial for ensuring reliable, safe, and ethical AI-assisted healthcare. Our research frames uncertainty not as a barrier but as an essential part of knowledge that invites a dynamic and reflective approach to AI design. By integrating advanced probabilistic methods such as Bayesian inference, deep ensembles, and Monte Carlo dropout with linguistic analysis that computes predictive and semantic entropy, we propose a comprehensive framework that manages both epistemic and aleatoric uncertainties. The framework incorporates surrogate modeling to address limitations of proprietary APIs, multi-source data integration for better context, and dynamic calibration via continual and meta-learning. Explainability is embedded through uncertainty maps and confidence metrics to support user trust and clinical interpretability. Our approach supports transparent and ethical decision-making aligned with Responsible and Reflective AI principles. Philosophically, we advocate accepting controlled ambiguity instead of striving for absolute predictability, recognizing the inherent provisionality of medical knowledge.

Vision Language Models versus Machine Learning Models Performance on Polyp Detection and Classification in Colonoscopy Images

Introduction: This study provides a comprehensive performance assessment of vision-language models (VLMs) against established convolutional neural networks (CNNs) and classic machine learning models (CMLs) for computer-aided detection (CADe) and computer-aided diagnosis (CADx) of colonoscopy polyp images. Method: We analyzed 2,258 colonoscopy images with corresponding pathology reports from 428 patients. We preprocessed all images using standardized techniques (resizing, normalization, and augmentation) and implemented a rigorous comparative framework evaluating 11 distinct models: ResNet50, 4 CMLs (random forest, support vector machine, logistic regression, decision tree), two specialized contrastive vision language encoders (CLIP, BiomedCLIP), and three general-purpose VLMs ( GPT-4 Gemini-1.5-Pro, Claude-3-Opus). Our performance assessment focused on two clinical tasks: polyp detection (CADe) and classification (CADx). Result: In polyp detection, ResNet50 achieved the best performance (F1: 91.35%, AUROC: 0.98), followed by BiomedCLIP (F1: 88.68%, AUROC: [AS1] ). GPT-4 demonstrated comparable effectiveness to traditional machine learning approaches (F1: 81.02%, AUROC: [AS2] ), outperforming other general-purpose VLMs. For polyp classification, performance rankings remained consistent but with lower overall metrics. ResNet50 maintained the highest efficacy (weighted F1: 74.94%), while GPT-4 demonstrated moderate capability (weighted F1: 41.18%), significantly exceeding other VLMs (Claude-3-Opus weighted F1: 25.54%, Gemini 1.5 Pro weighted F1: 6.17%). Conclusion: CNNs remain superior for both CADx and CADe tasks. However, VLMs like BioMedCLIP and GPT-4 may be useful for polyp detection tasks where training CNNs is not feasible.

Self-Reported Confidence of Large Language Models in Gastroenterology: Analysis of Commercial, Open-Source, and Quantized Models

This study evaluated self-reported response certainty across several large language models (GPT, Claude, Llama, Phi, Mistral, Gemini, Gemma, and Qwen) using 300 gastroenterology board-style questions. The highest-performing models (GPT-o1 preview, GPT-4o, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet) achieved Brier scores of 0.15-0.2 and AUROC of 0.6. Although newer models demonstrated improved performance, all exhibited a consistent tendency towards overconfidence. Uncertainty estimation presents a significant challenge to the safe use of LLMs in healthcare. Keywords: Large Language Models; Confidence Elicitation; Artificial Intelligence; Gastroenterology; Uncertainty Quantification