Nicholas Wan, Qiao Jin, Joey Chan, Guangzhi Xiong, Serina Applebaum, Aidan Gilson, Reid McMurry, R Andrew Taylor, Aidong Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhiyong Lu
{"title":"在复杂的临床决策中,人类仍然优于大型语言模型:医疗计算器研究","authors":"Nicholas Wan, Qiao Jin, Joey Chan, Guangzhi Xiong, Serina Applebaum, Aidan Gilson, Reid McMurry, R Andrew Taylor, Aidong Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhiyong Lu","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using licensing exams, their ability to support clinical decision-making, such as selecting medical calculators, remains uncertain. We assessed nine LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 multiple-choice question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and compared LLMs to humans on a subset of questions. While the highest-performing LLM, OpenAI o1, provided an answer accuracy of 66.0% (CI: 56.7-75.3%) on the subset of 100 questions, two human annotators nominally outperformed LLMs with an average answer accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). Ultimately, we evaluated medical trainees and LLMs in recommending medical calculators across clinical scenarios like risk stratification and diagnosis. With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (49.3% of errors) and calculator knowledge (7.1% of errors), our findings highlight that LLMs are not superior to humans in calculator recommendation.</p>","PeriodicalId":93888,"journal":{"name":"ArXiv","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11722524/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Humans and Large Language Models in Clinical Decision Support: A Study with Medical Calculators.\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Wan, Qiao Jin, Joey Chan, Guangzhi Xiong, Serina Applebaum, Aidan Gilson, Reid McMurry, R Andrew Taylor, Aidong Zhang, Qingyu Chen, Zhiyong Lu\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using licensing exams, their ability to support clinical decision-making, such as selecting medical calculators, remains uncertain. We assessed nine LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 multiple-choice question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and compared LLMs to humans on a subset of questions. While the highest-performing LLM, OpenAI o1, provided an answer accuracy of 66.0% (CI: 56.7-75.3%) on the subset of 100 questions, two human annotators nominally outperformed LLMs with an average answer accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). Ultimately, we evaluated medical trainees and LLMs in recommending medical calculators across clinical scenarios like risk stratification and diagnosis. With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (49.3% of errors) and calculator knowledge (7.1% of errors), our findings highlight that LLMs are not superior to humans in calculator recommendation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":93888,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"ArXiv\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11722524/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"ArXiv\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ArXiv","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Humans and Large Language Models in Clinical Decision Support: A Study with Medical Calculators.
Although large language models (LLMs) have been assessed for general medical knowledge using licensing exams, their ability to support clinical decision-making, such as selecting medical calculators, remains uncertain. We assessed nine LLMs, including open-source, proprietary, and domain-specific models, with 1,009 multiple-choice question-answer pairs across 35 clinical calculators and compared LLMs to humans on a subset of questions. While the highest-performing LLM, OpenAI o1, provided an answer accuracy of 66.0% (CI: 56.7-75.3%) on the subset of 100 questions, two human annotators nominally outperformed LLMs with an average answer accuracy of 79.5% (CI: 73.5-85.0%). Ultimately, we evaluated medical trainees and LLMs in recommending medical calculators across clinical scenarios like risk stratification and diagnosis. With error analysis showing that the highest-performing LLMs continue to make mistakes in comprehension (49.3% of errors) and calculator knowledge (7.1% of errors), our findings highlight that LLMs are not superior to humans in calculator recommendation.