REVIEW 1 cited by
Interpretable Medical Diagnostics with Structured Data Extraction by Large Language Models
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
Tabular data is often hidden in text, particularly in medical diagnostic reports. Traditional machine learning (ML) models designed to work with tabular data, cannot effectively process information in such form. On the other hand, large language models (LLMs) which excel at textual tasks, are probably not the best tool for modeling tabular data. Therefore, we propose a novel, simple, and effective methodology for extracting structured tabular data from textual medical reports, called TEMED-LLM. Drawing upon the reasoning capabilities of LLMs, TEMED-LLM goes beyond traditional extraction techniques, accurately inferring tabular features, even when their names are not explicitly mentioned in the text. This is achieved by combining domain-specific reasoning guidelines with a proposed data validation and reasoning correction feedback loop. By applying interpretable ML models such as decision trees and logistic regression over the extracted and validated data, we obtain end-to-end interpretable predictions. We demonstrate that our approach significantly outperforms state-of-the-art text classification models in medical diagnostics. Given its predictive performance, simplicity, and interpretability, TEMED-LLM underscores the potential of leveraging LLMs to improve the performance and trustworthiness of ML models in medical applications.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
RelationalFactQA: A Benchmark for Evaluating Tabular Fact Retrieval from Large Language Models
RelationalFactQA shows that LLMs are much worse at retrieving facts as multi-record tables than as single answers, with the best model reaching only 24.7% tuple similarity.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.