Vipina Kuttichi Keloth

Yan Hu, Qingyu Chen, Jingcheng Du et al.

Objective: This study quantifies the capabilities of GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 for clinical named entity recognition (NER) tasks and proposes task-specific prompts to improve their performance. Materials and Methods: We evaluated these models on two clinical NER tasks: (1) to extract medical problems, treatments, and tests from clinical notes in the MTSamples corpus, following the 2010 i2b2 concept extraction shared task, and (2) identifying nervous system disorder-related adverse events from safety reports in the vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS). To improve the GPT models' performance, we developed a clinical task-specific prompt framework that includes (1) baseline prompts with task description and format specification, (2) annotation guideline-based prompts, (3) error analysis-based instructions, and (4) annotated samples for few-shot learning. We assessed each prompt's effectiveness and compared the models to BioClinicalBERT. Results: Using baseline prompts, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 achieved relaxed F1 scores of 0.634, 0.804 for MTSamples, and 0.301, 0.593 for VAERS. Additional prompt components consistently improved model performance. When all four components were used, GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 achieved relaxed F1 socres of 0.794, 0.861 for MTSamples and 0.676, 0.736 for VAERS, demonstrating the effectiveness of our prompt framework. Although these results trail BioClinicalBERT (F1 of 0.901 for the MTSamples dataset and 0.802 for the VAERS), it is very promising considering few training samples are needed. Conclusion: While direct application of GPT models to clinical NER tasks falls short of optimal performance, our task-specific prompt framework, incorporating medical knowledge and training samples, significantly enhances GPT models' feasibility for potential clinical applications.

Qingyu Chen, Yan Hu, Xueqing Peng et al.

The rapid growth of biomedical literature poses challenges for manual knowledge curation and synthesis. Biomedical Natural Language Processing (BioNLP) automates the process. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in general domains, their effectiveness in BioNLP tasks remains unclear due to limited benchmarks and practical guidelines. We perform a systematic evaluation of four LLMs, GPT and LLaMA representatives on 12 BioNLP benchmarks across six applications. We compare their zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning performance with traditional fine-tuning of BERT or BART models. We examine inconsistencies, missing information, hallucinations, and perform cost analysis. Here we show that traditional fine-tuning outperforms zero or few shot LLMs in most tasks. However, closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 excel in reasoning-related tasks such as medical question answering. Open source LLMs still require fine-tuning to close performance gaps. We find issues like missing information and hallucinations in LLM outputs. These results offer practical insights for applying LLMs in BioNLP.