Sean Neifert

Anton Alyakin, Jaden Stryker, Daniel Alexander Alber et al.

General-purpose vision-language models (VLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities, but their opaque training on uncurated internet data posse critical limitations for high-stakes decision-making, such as in neurosurgery. We present CNS-Obsidian, a neurosurgical VLM trained on peer-reviewed neurosurgical literature, and demonstrate its clinical utility compared with GPT-4o in a real-world setting. We compiled 23,984 articles from Neurosurgery Publications journals, yielding 78,853 figures and captions. Using GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet-3.5, we converted these image-text pairs into 263,064 training samples across three formats: instruction fine-tuning, multiple-choice questions, and differential diagnosis. We trained CNS-Obsidian, a fine-tune of the 34-billion parameter LLaVA-Next model. In a blinded, randomized deployment trial at NYU Langone Health (Aug 30-Nov 30, 2024), neurosurgeons were assigned to use either CNS-Obsidian or GPT-4o as a diagnostic co-pilot after patient consultations. Primary outcomes were diagnostic helpfulness and accuracy. CNS-Obsidian matched GPT-4o on synthetic questions (76.13% vs 77.54%, p=0.235), but only achieved 46.81% accuracy on human-generated questions versus GPT-4o's 65.70% (p<10-15). In the randomized trial, 70 consultations were evaluated (32 CNS-Obsidian, 38 GPT-4o) from 959 total consults. CNS-Obsidian received positive ratings in 40.62% of cases versus 57.89% for GPT-4o (p=0.230). Both models included correct diagnosis in approximately 60% of cases (59.38% vs 65.79%, p=0.626). Domain-specific VLMs trained on curated scientific literature can approach frontier model performance in specialized medical domains despite being orders of magnitude smaller and less expensive to train. However, low clinical utilization suggests chatbot interfaces may not align with specialist workflows, indicating need for alternative AI integration strategies.

Yifan Li, Garrett Yoon, Mustafa Nasir-Moin et al.

Numerous COVID-19 clinical decision support systems have been developed. However many of these systems do not have the merit for validity due to methodological shortcomings including algorithmic bias. Methods Logistic regression models were created to predict COVID-19 mortality, ventilator status and inpatient status using a real-world dataset consisting of four hospitals in New York City and analyzed for biases against race, gender and age. Simple thresholding adjustments were applied in the training process to establish more equitable models. Results Compared to the naively trained models, the calibrated models showed a 57% decrease in the number of biased trials, while predictive performance, measured by area under the receiver/operating curve (AUC), remained unchanged. After calibration, the average sensitivity of the predictive models increased from 0.527 to 0.955. Conclusion We demonstrate that naively training and deploying machine learning models on real world data for predictive analytics of COVID-19 has a high risk of bias. Simple implemented adjustments or calibrations during model training can lead to substantial and sustained gains in fairness on subsequent deployment.