Abstract

Large language models (LLMs) have recently shown impressive zero-shot capabilities, whereby they can use auxiliary data, without the availability of task-specific training examples, to complete a variety of natural language tasks, such as summarization, dialogue generation, and question answering. However, despite many promising applications of LLMs in clinical medicine, adoption of these models has been limited by their tendency to generate incorrect and sometimes even harmful statements.We tasked a panel of eight board-certified clinicians and two health care practitioners with evaluating Almanac, an LLM framework augmented with retrieval capabilities from curated medical resources for medical guideline and treatment recommendations. The panel compared responses from Almanac and standard LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Bing, and Bard) versus a novel data set of 314 clinical questions spanning nine medical specialties.Almanac showed a significant improvement in performance compared with the standard LLMs across axes of factuality, completeness, user preference, and adversarial safety.Our results show the potential for LLMs with access to domain-specific corpora to be effective in clinical decision-making. The findings also underscore the importance of carefully testing LLMs before deployment to mitigate their shortcomings. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).

View details for DOI 10.1056/aioa2300068

View details for PubMedID 38343631

View details for PubMedCentralID PMC10857783