Arun James Thirunavukarasu

Ting Fang Tan, Kabilan Elangovan, Andreas Pollreisz et al.

Domain specific large language models are increasingly used to support patient education, triage, and clinical decision making in ophthalmology, making rigorous evaluation essential to ensure safety and accuracy. This study evaluated four small medical LLMs Meerkat-7B, BioMistral-7B, OpenBioLLM-8B, and MedLLaMA3-v20 in answering ophthalmology related patient queries and assessed the feasibility of LLM based evaluation against clinician grading. In this cross sectional study, 180 ophthalmology patient queries were answered by each model, generating 2160 responses. Models were selected for parameter sizes under 10 billion to enable resource efficient deployment. Responses were evaluated by three ophthalmologists of differing seniority and by GPT-4-Turbo using the S.C.O.R.E. framework assessing safety, consensus and context, objectivity, reproducibility, and explainability, with ratings assigned on a five point Likert scale. Agreement between LLM and clinician grading was assessed using Spearman rank correlation, Kendall tau statistics, and kernel density estimate analyses. Meerkat-7B achieved the highest performance with mean scores of 3.44 from Senior Consultants, 4.08 from Consultants, and 4.18 from Residents. MedLLaMA3-v20 performed poorest, with 25.5 percent of responses containing hallucinations or clinically misleading content, including fabricated terminology. GPT-4-Turbo grading showed strong alignment with clinician assessments overall, with Spearman rho of 0.80 and Kendall tau of 0.67, though Senior Consultants graded more conservatively. Overall, medical LLMs demonstrated potential for safe ophthalmic question answering, but gaps remained in clinical depth and consensus, supporting the feasibility of LLM based evaluation for large scale benchmarking and the need for hybrid automated and clinician review frameworks to guide safe clinical deployment.

Rohan Sanghera, Arun James Thirunavukarasu, Marc El Khoury et al.

Large language models (LLMs) excel in tasks requiring processing and interpretation of input text. Abstract screening is a labour-intensive component of systematic review involving repetitive application of inclusion and exclusion criteria on a large volume of studies identified by a literature search. Here, LLMs (GPT-3.5 Turbo, GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4o, Llama 3 70B, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 3.5) were trialled on systematic reviews in a full issue of the Cochrane Library to evaluate their accuracy in zero-shot binary classification for abstract screening. Trials over a subset of 800 records identified optimal prompting strategies and demonstrated superior performance of LLMs to human researchers in terms of sensitivity (LLM-max = 1.000, human-max = 0.775), precision (LLM-max = 0.927, human-max = 0.911), and balanced accuracy (LLM-max = 0.904, human-max = 0.865). The best performing LLM-prompt combinations were trialled across every replicated search result (n = 119,691), and exhibited consistent sensitivity (range 0.756-1.000) but diminished precision (range 0.004-0.096). 66 LLM-human and LLM-LLM ensembles exhibited perfect sensitivity with a maximal precision of 0.458, with less observed performance drop in larger trials. Significant variation in performance was observed between reviews, highlighting the importance of domain-specific validation before deployment. LLMs may reduce the human labour cost of systematic review with maintained or improved accuracy and sensitivity. Systematic review is the foundation of evidence synthesis across academic disciplines, including evidence-based medicine, and LLMs may increase the efficiency and quality of this mode of research.