Thaddaeus Wai Soon Lo

Qingshan Hou, Yukun Zhou, Jocelyn Hui Lin Goh et al.

The advent of foundation models (FMs) is transforming medical domain. In ophthalmology, RETFound, a retina-specific FM pre-trained sequentially on 1.4 million natural images and 1.6 million retinal images, has demonstrated high adaptability across clinical applications. Conversely, DINOv2, a general-purpose vision FM pre-trained on 142 million natural images, has shown promise in non-medical domains. However, its applicability to clinical tasks remains underexplored. To address this, we conducted head-to-head evaluations by fine-tuning RETFound and three DINOv2 models (large, base, small) for ocular disease detection and systemic disease prediction tasks, across eight standardized open-source ocular datasets, as well as the Moorfields AlzEye and the UK Biobank datasets. DINOv2-large model outperformed RETFound in detecting diabetic retinopathy (AUROC=0.850-0.952 vs 0.823-0.944, across three datasets, all P<=0.007) and multi-class eye diseases (AUROC=0.892 vs. 0.846, P<0.001). In glaucoma, DINOv2-base model outperformed RETFound (AUROC=0.958 vs 0.940, P<0.001). Conversely, RETFound achieved superior performance over all DINOv2 models in predicting heart failure, myocardial infarction, and ischaemic stroke (AUROC=0.732-0.796 vs 0.663-0.771, all P<0.001). These trends persisted even with 10% of the fine-tuning data. These findings showcase the distinct scenarios where general-purpose and domain-specific FMs excel, highlighting the importance of aligning FM selection with task-specific requirements to optimise clinical performance.

Sahana Srinivasan, Xuguang Ai, Minjie Zou et al.

Question: What is the performance and reasoning ability of OpenAI o1 compared to other large language models in addressing ophthalmology-specific questions? Findings: This study evaluated OpenAI o1 and five LLMs using 6,990 ophthalmological questions from MedMCQA. O1 achieved the highest accuracy (0.88) and macro-F1 score but ranked third in reasoning capabilities based on text-generation metrics. Across subtopics, o1 ranked first in ``Lens'' and ``Glaucoma'' but second to GPT-4o in ``Corneal and External Diseases'', ``Vitreous and Retina'' and ``Oculoplastic and Orbital Diseases''. Subgroup analyses showed o1 performed better on queries with longer ground truth explanations. Meaning: O1's reasoning enhancements may not fully extend to ophthalmology, underscoring the need for domain-specific refinements to optimize performance in specialized fields like ophthalmology.

Minjie Zou, Sahana Srinivasan, Thaddaeus Wai Soon Lo et al.

Recent advances in reasoning-focused large language models (LLMs) mark a shift from general LLMs toward models designed for complex decision-making, a crucial aspect in medicine. However, their performance in specialized domains like ophthalmology remains underexplored. This study comprehensively evaluated and compared the accuracy and reasoning capabilities of four newly developed reasoning-focused LLMs, namely DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI o1, o3-mini, and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking. Each model was assessed using 5,888 multiple-choice ophthalmology exam questions from the MedMCQA dataset in zero-shot setting. Quantitative evaluation included accuracy, Macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, METEOR, BERTScore, BARTScore, and AlignScore), computed against ground-truth reasonings. Average inference time was recorded for a subset of 100 randomly selected questions. Additionally, two board-certified ophthalmologists qualitatively assessed clarity, completeness, and reasoning structure of responses to differential diagnosis questions.O1 (0.902) and DeepSeek-R1 (0.888) achieved the highest accuracy, with o1 also leading in Macro-F1 (0.900). The performance of models across the text-generation metrics varied: O3-mini excelled in ROUGE-L (0.151), o1 in METEOR (0.232), DeepSeek-R1 and o3-mini tied for BERTScore (0.673), DeepSeek-R1 (-4.105) and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking (-4.127) performed best in BARTScore, while o3-mini (0.181) and o1 (0.176) led AlignScore. Inference time across the models varied, with DeepSeek-R1 being slowest (40.4 seconds) and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking fastest (6.7 seconds). Qualitative evaluation revealed that DeepSeek-R1 and Gemini 2.0 Flash-Thinking tended to provide detailed and comprehensive intermediate reasoning, whereas o1 and o3-mini displayed concise and summarized justifications.

Donghwan Kim, Xin Gu, Jinho Baek et al.

Machine learning (ML) models memorize and leak training data, causing serious privacy issues to data owners. Training algorithms with differential privacy (DP), such as DP-SGD, have been gaining attention as a solution. However, DP-SGD adds a noise at each training iteration, which degrades the accuracy of the trained model. To improve accuracy, a new family of approaches adds carefully designed correlated noises, so that noises cancel out each other across iterations. We performed an extensive characterization study of these new mechanisms, for the first time to the best of our knowledge, and show they incur non-negligible overheads when the model is large or uses large embedding tables. Motivated by the analysis, we propose Cocoon, a hardware-software co-designed framework for efficient training with correlated noises. Cocoon accelerates models with embedding tables through pre-computing and storing correlated noises in a coalesced format (Cocoon-Emb), and supports large models through a custom near-memory processing device (Cocoon-NMP). On a real system with an FPGA-based NMP device prototype, Cocoon improves the performance by 2.33-10.82x(Cocoon-Emb) and 1.55-3.06x (Cocoon-NMP).

Sahana Srinivasan, Xuguang Ai, Thaddaeus Wai Soon Lo et al.

Current benchmarks evaluating large language models (LLMs) in ophthalmology are limited in scope and disproportionately prioritise accuracy. We introduce BELO (BEnchmarking LLMs for Ophthalmology), a standardized and comprehensive evaluation benchmark developed through multiple rounds of expert checking by 13 ophthalmologists. BELO assesses ophthalmology-related clinical accuracy and reasoning quality. Using keyword matching and a fine-tuned PubMedBERT model, we curated ophthalmology-specific multiple-choice-questions (MCQs) from diverse medical datasets (BCSC, MedMCQA, MedQA, BioASQ, and PubMedQA). The dataset underwent multiple rounds of expert checking. Duplicate and substandard questions were systematically removed. Ten ophthalmologists refined the explanations of each MCQ's correct answer. This was further adjudicated by three senior ophthalmologists. To illustrate BELO's utility, we evaluated six LLMs (OpenAI o1, o3-mini, GPT-4o, DeepSeek-R1, Llama-3-8B, and Gemini 1.5 Pro) using accuracy, macro-F1, and five text-generation metrics (ROUGE-L, BERTScore, BARTScore, METEOR, and AlignScore). In a further evaluation involving human experts, two ophthalmologists qualitatively reviewed 50 randomly selected outputs for accuracy, comprehensiveness, and completeness. BELO consists of 900 high-quality, expert-reviewed questions aggregated from five sources: BCSC (260), BioASQ (10), MedMCQA (572), MedQA (40), and PubMedQA (18). A public leaderboard has been established to promote transparent evaluation and reporting. Importantly, the BELO dataset will remain a hold-out, evaluation-only benchmark to ensure fair and reproducible comparisons of future models.