Balu Bhasuran

Balu Bhasuran, Gurusamy Murugesan, Jeyakumar Natarajan

Biomedical knowledge is growing in an astounding pace with a majority of this knowledge is represented as scientific publications. Text mining tools and methods represents automatic approaches for extracting hidden patterns and trends from this semi structured and unstructured data. In Biomedical Text mining, Literature Based Discovery (LBD) is the process of automatically discovering novel associations between medical terms otherwise mentioned in disjoint literature sets. LBD approaches proven to be successfully reducing the discovery time of potential associations that are hidden in the vast amount of scientific literature. The process focuses on creating concept profiles for medical terms such as a disease or symptom and connecting it with a drug and treatment based on the statistical significance of the shared profiles. This knowledge discovery approach introduced in 1989 still remains as a core task in text mining. Currently the ABC principle based two approaches namely open discovery and closed discovery are mostly explored in LBD process. This review starts with general introduction about text mining followed by biomedical text mining and introduces various literature resources such as MEDLINE, UMLS, MESH, and SemMedDB. This is followed by brief introduction of the core ABC principle and its associated two approaches open discovery and closed discovery in LBD process. This review also discusses the deep learning applications in LBD by reviewing the role of transformer models and neural networks based LBD models and its future aspects. Finally, reviews the key biomedical discoveries generated through LBD approaches in biomedicine and conclude with the current limitations and future directions of LBD.

Ajo Babu George, Anna Mariam John, Athul Anoop et al.

Artificial intelligence (AI)-enabled diagnostics in maxillofacial pathology require structured, high-quality multimodal datasets. However, existing resources provide limited ameloblastoma coverage and lack the format consistency needed for direct model training. We present a newly curated multimodal dataset specifically focused on ameloblastoma, integrating annotated radiological, histopathological, and intraoral clinical images with structured data derived from case reports. Natural language processing techniques were employed to extract clinically relevant features from textual reports, while image data underwent domain specific preprocessing and augmentation. Using this dataset, a multimodal deep learning model was developed to classify ameloblastoma variants, assess behavioral patterns such as recurrence risk, and support surgical planning. The model is designed to accept clinical inputs such as presenting complaint, age, and gender during deployment to enhance personalized inference. Quantitative evaluation demonstrated substantial improvements; variant classification accuracy increased from 46.2 percent to 65.9 percent, and abnormal tissue detection F1-score improved from 43.0 percent to 90.3 percent. Benchmarked against resources like MultiCaRe, this work advances patient-specific decision support by providing both a robust dataset and an adaptable multimodal AI framework.

Xiaoyu Wang, Haoyong Ouyang, Balu Bhasuran et al.

Accurate interpretation of lab results is crucial in clinical medicine, yet most patient portals use universal normal ranges, ignoring conditional factors like age and gender. This study introduces Lab-AI, an interactive system that offers personalized normal ranges using retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) from credible health sources. Lab-AI has two modules: factor retrieval and normal range retrieval. We tested these on 122 lab tests: 40 with conditional factors and 82 without. For tests with factors, normal ranges depend on patient-specific information. Our results show GPT-4-turbo with RAG achieved a 0.948 F1 score for factor retrieval and 0.995 accuracy for normal range retrieval. GPT-4-turbo with RAG outperformed the best non-RAG system by 33.5% in factor retrieval and showed 132% and 100% improvements in question-level and lab-level performance, respectively, for normal range retrieval. These findings highlight Lab-AI's potential to enhance patient understanding of lab results.

Zhe He, Balu Bhasuran, Qiao Jin et al.

Lab results are often confusing and hard to understand. Large language models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT have opened a promising avenue for patients to get their questions answered. We aim to assess the feasibility of using LLMs to generate relevant, accurate, helpful, and unharmful responses to lab test-related questions asked by patients and to identify potential issues that can be mitigated with augmentation approaches. We first collected lab test results related question and answer data from Yahoo! Answers and selected 53 QA pairs for this study. Using the LangChain framework and ChatGPT web portal, we generated responses to the 53 questions from four LLMs including GPT-4, Meta LLaMA 2, MedAlpaca, and ORCA_mini. We first assessed the similarity of their answers using standard QA similarity-based evaluation metrics including ROUGE, BLEU, METEOR, BERTScore. We also utilized an LLM-based evaluator to judge whether a target model has higher quality in terms of relevance, correctness, helpfulness, and safety than the baseline model. Finally, we performed a manual evaluation with medical experts for all the responses to seven selected questions on the same four aspects. The results of Win Rate and medical expert evaluation both showed that GPT-4's responses achieved better scores than all the other LLM responses and human responses on all four aspects (relevance, correctness, helpfulness, and safety). However, LLM responses occasionally also suffer from a lack of interpretation in one's medical context, incorrect statements, and lack of references. We find that compared to other three LLMs and human answer from the Q&A website, GPT-4's responses are more accurate, helpful, relevant, and safer. However, there are cases which GPT-4 responses are inaccurate and not individualized. We identified a number of ways to improve the quality of LLM responses.

Qiao Jin, Nicholas Wan, Robert Leaman et al.

Large language models (LLMs) represent a transformative class of AI tools capable of revolutionizing various aspects of healthcare by generating human-like responses across diverse contexts and adapting to novel tasks following human instructions. Their potential application spans a broad range of medical tasks, such as clinical documentation, matching patients to clinical trials, and answering medical questions. In this primer paper, we propose an actionable guideline to help healthcare professionals more efficiently utilize LLMs in their work, along with a set of best practices. This approach consists of several main phases, including formulating the task, choosing LLMs, prompt engineering, fine-tuning, and deployment. We start with the discussion of critical considerations in identifying healthcare tasks that align with the core capabilities of LLMs and selecting models based on the selected task and data, performance requirements, and model interface. We then review the strategies, such as prompt engineering and fine-tuning, to adapt standard LLMs to specialized medical tasks. Deployment considerations, including regulatory compliance, ethical guidelines, and continuous monitoring for fairness and bias, are also discussed. By providing a structured step-by-step methodology, this tutorial aims to equip healthcare professionals with the tools necessary to effectively integrate LLMs into clinical practice, ensuring that these powerful technologies are applied in a safe, reliable, and impactful manner.

Balu Bhasuran, Mattia Prosperi, Karim Hanna et al.

This study evaluates causal reasoning in large language models (LLMs) using 99 clinically grounded laboratory test scenarios aligned with Pearl's Ladder of Causation: association, intervention, and counterfactual reasoning. We examined common laboratory tests such as hemoglobin A1c, creatinine, and vitamin D, and paired them with relevant causal factors including age, gender, obesity, and smoking. Two LLMs - GPT-o1 and Llama-3.2-8b-instruct - were tested, with responses evaluated by four medically trained human experts. GPT-o1 demonstrated stronger discriminative performance (AUROC overall = 0.80 +/- 0.12) compared to Llama-3.2-8b-instruct (0.73 +/- 0.15), with higher scores across association (0.75 vs 0.72), intervention (0.84 vs 0.70), and counterfactual reasoning (0.84 vs 0.69). Sensitivity (0.90 vs 0.84) and specificity (0.93 vs 0.80) were also greater for GPT-o1, with reasoning ratings showing similar trends. Both models performed best on intervention questions and worst on counterfactuals, particularly in altered outcome scenarios. These findings suggest GPT-o1 provides more consistent causal reasoning, but refinement is required before adoption in high-stakes clinical applications.

Balu Bhasuran, Qiao Jin, Yuzhang Xie et al.

Differential diagnosis is crucial for medicine as it helps healthcare providers systematically distinguish between conditions that share similar symptoms. This study assesses the impact of lab test results on differential diagnoses (DDx) made by large language models (LLMs). Clinical vignettes from 50 case reports from PubMed Central were created incorporating patient demographics, symptoms, and lab results. Five LLMs GPT-4, GPT-3.5, Llama-2-70b, Claude-2, and Mixtral-8x7B were tested to generate Top 10, Top 5, and Top 1 DDx with and without lab data. A comprehensive evaluation involving GPT-4, a knowledge graph, and clinicians was conducted. GPT-4 performed best, achieving 55% accuracy for Top 1 diagnoses and 60% for Top 10 with lab data, with lenient accuracy up to 80%. Lab results significantly improved accuracy, with GPT-4 and Mixtral excelling, though exact match rates were low. Lab tests, including liver function, metabolic/toxicology panels, and serology/immune tests, were generally interpreted correctly by LLMs for differential diagnosis.