Jointly Extracting Interventions, Outcomes, and Findings from RCT Reports with LLMs.

Somin Wadhwa, Jay DeYoung, Benjamin Nye, Silvio Amir, Byron C Wallace
{"title":"Jointly Extracting Interventions, Outcomes, and Findings from RCT Reports with LLMs.","authors":"Somin Wadhwa, Jay DeYoung, Benjamin Nye, Silvio Amir, Byron C Wallace","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Results from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) establish the comparative effectiveness of interventions, and are in turn critical inputs for evidence-based care. However, results from RCTs are presented in (often unstructured) natural language articles describing the design, execution, and outcomes of trials; clinicians must manually extract findings pertaining to interventions and outcomes of interest from such articles. This onerous manual process has motivated work on (semi-)automating extraction of structured evidence from trial reports. In this work we propose and evaluate a text-to-text model built on instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) to jointly extract <i>Interventions</i>, <i>Outcomes</i>, and <i>Comparators</i> (ICO elements) from clinical abstracts, and infer the associated results reported. Manual (expert) and automated evaluations indicate that framing evidence extraction as a conditional generation task and fine-tuning LLMs for this purpose realizes considerable (~20 point absolute F1 score) gains over the previous SOTA. We perform ablations and error analyses to assess aspects that contribute to model performance, and to highlight potential directions for further improvements. We apply our model to a collection of published RCTs through mid-2022, and release a searchable database of structured findings: http://ico-relations.ebm-nlp.com.</p>","PeriodicalId":74504,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of machine learning research","volume":"219 ","pages":"754-771"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12451563/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of machine learning research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Results from Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) establish the comparative effectiveness of interventions, and are in turn critical inputs for evidence-based care. However, results from RCTs are presented in (often unstructured) natural language articles describing the design, execution, and outcomes of trials; clinicians must manually extract findings pertaining to interventions and outcomes of interest from such articles. This onerous manual process has motivated work on (semi-)automating extraction of structured evidence from trial reports. In this work we propose and evaluate a text-to-text model built on instruction-tuned Large Language Models (LLMs) to jointly extract Interventions, Outcomes, and Comparators (ICO elements) from clinical abstracts, and infer the associated results reported. Manual (expert) and automated evaluations indicate that framing evidence extraction as a conditional generation task and fine-tuning LLMs for this purpose realizes considerable (~20 point absolute F1 score) gains over the previous SOTA. We perform ablations and error analyses to assess aspects that contribute to model performance, and to highlight potential directions for further improvements. We apply our model to a collection of published RCTs through mid-2022, and release a searchable database of structured findings: http://ico-relations.ebm-nlp.com.

联合提取干预措施,结果和发现从与LLMs的RCT报告。
随机对照试验(RCTs)的结果确定了干预措施的相对有效性,并反过来成为循证护理的关键输入。然而,随机对照试验的结果在描述试验的设计、执行和结果的自然语言文章中呈现(通常是非结构化的);临床医生必须手动从这些文章中提取有关干预措施和感兴趣的结果的发现。这种繁重的手工过程激发了从试验报告中(半)自动化地提取结构化证据的工作。在这项工作中,我们提出并评估了一个基于指令调整的大型语言模型(LLMs)的文本到文本模型,该模型可以从临床摘要中联合提取干预措施、结果和比较因子(ICO元素),并推断相关的结果。手动(专家)和自动评估表明,将证据提取框架作为条件生成任务,并为此目的微调llm,比以前的SOTA实现了相当大的(约20分的绝对F1分数)增益。我们执行消融和错误分析,以评估有助于模型性能的方面,并强调进一步改进的潜在方向。我们将我们的模型应用于2022年中期之前发表的随机对照试验,并发布了一个可搜索的结构化结果数据库:http://ico-relations.ebm-nlp.com。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信