Thomas A Trikalinos

Nikita Salkar, Thomas Trikalinos, Byron C. Wallace et al.

We provide a quantitative and qualitative analysis of self-repetition in the output of neural summarizers. We measure self-repetition as the number of n-grams of length four or longer that appear in multiple outputs of the same system. We analyze the behavior of three popular architectures (BART, T5, and Pegasus), fine-tuned on five datasets. In a regression analysis, we find that the three architectures have different propensities for repeating content across output summaries for inputs, with BART being particularly prone to self-repetition. Fine-tuning on more abstractive data, and on data featuring formulaic language, is associated with a higher rate of self-repetition. In qualitative analysis we find systems produce artefacts such as ads and disclaimers unrelated to the content being summarized, as well as formulaic phrases common in the fine-tuning domain. Our approach to corpus-level analysis of self-repetition may help practitioners clean up training data for summarizers and ultimately support methods for minimizing the amount of self-repetition.

Shlomi Hod, Debanuj Nayak, Jason R. Gantenberg et al.

Epidemiologic studies of infectious diseases often rely on models of contact networks to capture the complex interactions that govern disease spread, and ongoing projects aim to vastly increase the scale at which such data can be collected. However, contact networks may include sensitive information, such as sexual relationships or drug use behavior. Protecting individual privacy while maintaining the scientific usefulness of the data is crucial. We propose a privacy-preserving pipeline for disease spread simulation studies based on a sensitive network that integrates differential privacy (DP) with statistical network models such as stochastic block models (SBMs) and exponential random graph models (ERGMs). Our pipeline comprises three steps: (1) compute network summary statistics using \emph{node-level} DP (which corresponds to protecting individuals' contributions); (2) fit a statistical model, like an ERGM, using these summaries, which allows generating synthetic networks reflecting the structure of the original network; and (3) simulate disease spread on the synthetic networks using an agent-based model. We evaluate the effectiveness of our approach using a simple Susceptible-Infected-Susceptible (SIS) disease model under multiple configurations. We compare both numerical results, such as simulated disease incidence and prevalence, as well as qualitative conclusions such as intervention effect size, on networks generated with and without differential privacy constraints. Our experiments are based on egocentric sexual network data from the ARTNet study (a survey about HIV-related behaviors). Our results show that the noise added for privacy is small relative to other sources of error (sampling and model misspecification). This suggests that, in principle, curators of such sensitive data can provide valuable epidemiologic insights while protecting privacy.

Hye Sun Yun, Iain J. Marshall, Thomas A. Trikalinos et al.

Medical systematic reviews play a vital role in healthcare decision making and policy. However, their production is time-consuming, limiting the availability of high-quality and up-to-date evidence summaries. Recent advancements in large language models (LLMs) offer the potential to automatically generate literature reviews on demand, addressing this issue. However, LLMs sometimes generate inaccurate (and potentially misleading) texts by hallucination or omission. In healthcare, this can make LLMs unusable at best and dangerous at worst. We conducted 16 interviews with international systematic review experts to characterize the perceived utility and risks of LLMs in the specific context of medical evidence reviews. Experts indicated that LLMs can assist in the writing process by drafting summaries, generating templates, distilling information, and crosschecking information. They also raised concerns regarding confidently composed but inaccurate LLM outputs and other potential downstream harms, including decreased accountability and proliferation of low-quality reviews. Informed by this qualitative analysis, we identify criteria for rigorous evaluation of biomedical LLMs aligned with domain expert views.