医学问答中集成学习的大语言模型协同:设计与评价研究。

IF 5.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Han Yang, Mingchen Li, Huixue Zhou, Yongkang Xiao, Qian Fang, Shuang Zhou, Rui Zhang
{"title":"医学问答中集成学习的大语言模型协同:设计与评价研究。","authors":"Han Yang, Mingchen Li, Huixue Zhou, Yongkang Xiao, Qian Fang, Shuang Zhou, Rui Zhang","doi":"10.2196/70080","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language processing tasks, including medical question-answering (QA). However, individual LLMs often exhibit varying performance across different medical QA datasets. We benchmarked individual zero-shot LLMs (GPT-4, Llama2-13B, Vicuna-13B, MedLlama-13B, and MedAlpaca-13B) to assess their baseline performance. Within the benchmark, GPT-4 achieves the best 71% on MedMCQA (medical multiple-choice question answering dataset), Vicuna-13B achieves 89.5% on PubMedQA (a dataset for biomedical question answering), and MedAlpaca-13B achieves the best 70% among all, showing the potential for better performance across different tasks and highlighting the need for strategies that can harness their collective strengths. Ensemble learning methods, combining multiple models to improve overall accuracy and reliability, offer a promising approach to address this challenge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop and evaluate efficient ensemble learning approaches, we focus on improving performance across 3 medical QA datasets through our proposed two ensemble strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our study uses 3 medical QA datasets: PubMedQA (1000 manually labeled and 11,269 test, with yes, no, or maybe answered for each question), MedQA-USMLE (Medical Question Answering dataset based on the United States Medical Licensing Examination; 12,724 English board-style questions; 1272 test, 5 options), and MedMCQA (182,822 training/4183 test questions, 4-option multiple choice). We introduced the LLM-Synergy framework, consisting of two ensemble methods: (1) a Boosting-based Weighted Majority Vote ensemble, refining decision-making by adaptively weighting each LLM and (2) a Cluster-based Dynamic Model Selection ensemble, dynamically selecting optimal LLMs for each query based on question-context embeddings and clustering.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both ensemble methods outperformed individual LLMs across all 3 datasets. Specifically comparing the best individual LLM, the Boosting-based Majority Weighted Vote achieved accuracies of 35.84% on MedMCQA (+3.81%), 96.21% on PubMedQA (+0.64%), and 37.26% (tie) on MedQA-USMLE. The Cluster-based Dynamic Model Selection yields even higher accuracies of 38.01% (+5.98%) for MedMCQA, 96.36% (+1.09%) for PubMedQA, and 38.13% (+0.87%) for MedQA-USMLE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The LLM-Synergy framework, using 2 ensemble methods, represents a significant advancement in leveraging LLMs for medical QA tasks. Through effectively combining the strengths of diverse LLMs, this framework provides a flexible and efficient strategy adaptable to current and future challenges in biomedical informatics.</p>","PeriodicalId":16337,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","volume":"27 ","pages":"e70080"},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Large Language Model Synergy for Ensemble Learning in Medical Question Answering: Design and Evaluation Study.\",\"authors\":\"Han Yang, Mingchen Li, Huixue Zhou, Yongkang Xiao, Qian Fang, Shuang Zhou, Rui Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.2196/70080\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language processing tasks, including medical question-answering (QA). However, individual LLMs often exhibit varying performance across different medical QA datasets. We benchmarked individual zero-shot LLMs (GPT-4, Llama2-13B, Vicuna-13B, MedLlama-13B, and MedAlpaca-13B) to assess their baseline performance. Within the benchmark, GPT-4 achieves the best 71% on MedMCQA (medical multiple-choice question answering dataset), Vicuna-13B achieves 89.5% on PubMedQA (a dataset for biomedical question answering), and MedAlpaca-13B achieves the best 70% among all, showing the potential for better performance across different tasks and highlighting the need for strategies that can harness their collective strengths. Ensemble learning methods, combining multiple models to improve overall accuracy and reliability, offer a promising approach to address this challenge.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To develop and evaluate efficient ensemble learning approaches, we focus on improving performance across 3 medical QA datasets through our proposed two ensemble strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Our study uses 3 medical QA datasets: PubMedQA (1000 manually labeled and 11,269 test, with yes, no, or maybe answered for each question), MedQA-USMLE (Medical Question Answering dataset based on the United States Medical Licensing Examination; 12,724 English board-style questions; 1272 test, 5 options), and MedMCQA (182,822 training/4183 test questions, 4-option multiple choice). We introduced the LLM-Synergy framework, consisting of two ensemble methods: (1) a Boosting-based Weighted Majority Vote ensemble, refining decision-making by adaptively weighting each LLM and (2) a Cluster-based Dynamic Model Selection ensemble, dynamically selecting optimal LLMs for each query based on question-context embeddings and clustering.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Both ensemble methods outperformed individual LLMs across all 3 datasets. Specifically comparing the best individual LLM, the Boosting-based Majority Weighted Vote achieved accuracies of 35.84% on MedMCQA (+3.81%), 96.21% on PubMedQA (+0.64%), and 37.26% (tie) on MedQA-USMLE. The Cluster-based Dynamic Model Selection yields even higher accuracies of 38.01% (+5.98%) for MedMCQA, 96.36% (+1.09%) for PubMedQA, and 38.13% (+0.87%) for MedQA-USMLE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The LLM-Synergy framework, using 2 ensemble methods, represents a significant advancement in leveraging LLMs for medical QA tasks. Through effectively combining the strengths of diverse LLMs, this framework provides a flexible and efficient strategy adaptable to current and future challenges in biomedical informatics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16337,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"volume\":\"27 \",\"pages\":\"e70080\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Internet Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2196/70080\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Internet Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/70080","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:大型语言模型(llm)在自然语言处理任务中表现出了非凡的能力,包括医学问答(QA)。然而,在不同的医学质量保证数据集上,单个法学硕士往往表现出不同的性能。我们对单个零射击llm (GPT-4、Llama2-13B、Vicuna-13B、MedLlama-13B和MedAlpaca-13B)进行基准测试,以评估它们的基线性能。在基准测试中,GPT-4在MedMCQA(医学选择题回答数据集)上达到了71%的最佳成绩,Vicuna-13B在PubMedQA(生物医学问答数据集)上达到了89.5%的最佳成绩,而MedAlpaca-13B在所有测试中达到了70%的最佳成绩,显示了在不同任务中有更好表现的潜力,并强调了对能够利用其集体优势的策略的需求。集成学习方法,结合多个模型来提高整体的准确性和可靠性,为解决这一挑战提供了一个有希望的方法。目的:为了开发和评估有效的集成学习方法,我们通过提出的两种集成策略专注于提高3个医疗质量保证数据集的性能。方法:我们的研究使用了3个医学问答数据集:PubMedQA(1000个人工标记和11,269个测试,每个问题都有是、否或可能的答案),MedQA-USMLE(基于美国医疗执照考试的医学问答数据集;12724道英语板题;1272测试,5个选项),以及MedMCQA(182,822个培训/4183个测试问题,4个选项选择)。我们引入了LLM- synergy框架,由两种集成方法组成:(1)基于boosting的加权多数投票集成,通过自适应加权每个LLM来改进决策;(2)基于聚类的动态模型选择集成,基于问题上下文嵌入和聚类为每个查询动态选择最优LLM。结果:两种集成方法在所有3个数据集上都优于单个llm。具体比较最佳LLM,基于boost的多数加权投票在MedMCQA上的准确率为35.84%(+3.81%),在PubMedQA上的准确率为96.21%(+0.64%),在MedQA-USMLE上的准确率为37.26%(平局)。基于聚类的动态模型选择的准确率更高,MedMCQA为38.01% (+5.98%),PubMedQA为96.36% (+1.09%),MedQA-USMLE为38.13%(+0.87%)。结论:法学硕士协同框架,使用两种集成方法,代表了利用法学硕士医学质量保证任务的重大进步。通过有效地结合不同法学硕士的优势,该框架提供了一个灵活有效的策略,适应生物医学信息学当前和未来的挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Large Language Model Synergy for Ensemble Learning in Medical Question Answering: Design and Evaluation Study.

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language processing tasks, including medical question-answering (QA). However, individual LLMs often exhibit varying performance across different medical QA datasets. We benchmarked individual zero-shot LLMs (GPT-4, Llama2-13B, Vicuna-13B, MedLlama-13B, and MedAlpaca-13B) to assess their baseline performance. Within the benchmark, GPT-4 achieves the best 71% on MedMCQA (medical multiple-choice question answering dataset), Vicuna-13B achieves 89.5% on PubMedQA (a dataset for biomedical question answering), and MedAlpaca-13B achieves the best 70% among all, showing the potential for better performance across different tasks and highlighting the need for strategies that can harness their collective strengths. Ensemble learning methods, combining multiple models to improve overall accuracy and reliability, offer a promising approach to address this challenge.

Objective: To develop and evaluate efficient ensemble learning approaches, we focus on improving performance across 3 medical QA datasets through our proposed two ensemble strategies.

Methods: Our study uses 3 medical QA datasets: PubMedQA (1000 manually labeled and 11,269 test, with yes, no, or maybe answered for each question), MedQA-USMLE (Medical Question Answering dataset based on the United States Medical Licensing Examination; 12,724 English board-style questions; 1272 test, 5 options), and MedMCQA (182,822 training/4183 test questions, 4-option multiple choice). We introduced the LLM-Synergy framework, consisting of two ensemble methods: (1) a Boosting-based Weighted Majority Vote ensemble, refining decision-making by adaptively weighting each LLM and (2) a Cluster-based Dynamic Model Selection ensemble, dynamically selecting optimal LLMs for each query based on question-context embeddings and clustering.

Results: Both ensemble methods outperformed individual LLMs across all 3 datasets. Specifically comparing the best individual LLM, the Boosting-based Majority Weighted Vote achieved accuracies of 35.84% on MedMCQA (+3.81%), 96.21% on PubMedQA (+0.64%), and 37.26% (tie) on MedQA-USMLE. The Cluster-based Dynamic Model Selection yields even higher accuracies of 38.01% (+5.98%) for MedMCQA, 96.36% (+1.09%) for PubMedQA, and 38.13% (+0.87%) for MedQA-USMLE.

Conclusions: The LLM-Synergy framework, using 2 ensemble methods, represents a significant advancement in leveraging LLMs for medical QA tasks. Through effectively combining the strengths of diverse LLMs, this framework provides a flexible and efficient strategy adaptable to current and future challenges in biomedical informatics.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.40
自引率
5.40%
发文量
654
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR) is a highly respected publication in the field of health informatics and health services. With a founding date in 1999, JMIR has been a pioneer in the field for over two decades. As a leader in the industry, the journal focuses on digital health, data science, health informatics, and emerging technologies for health, medicine, and biomedical research. It is recognized as a top publication in these disciplines, ranking in the first quartile (Q1) by Impact Factor. Notably, JMIR holds the prestigious position of being ranked #1 on Google Scholar within the "Medical Informatics" discipline.
×
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