Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39702641›Full record

ArticleNPJ digital medicine2024

Probabilistic medical predictions of large language models.

Bowen Gu, Rishi J Desai, Kueiyu Joshua Lin, Jie Yang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Bowen GuDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Rishi J DesaiDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Kueiyu Joshua Lin *Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
Jie Yang *Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. jyang66@bwh.harvard.edu.

Funding

Developing scalable algorithms to incorporate unstructured electronic health records for causal inference based on real-world dataR01LM013204 · NLM · BRIGHAM AND WOMEN'S HOSPITAL · PI LIN, JOSHUA K · 2020 to 2024
$2.7M
NIH HHS R01LM013204NLM NIH HHS R01 LM013204
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in clinical applications through prompt engineering, allowing flexible clinical predictions. However, they struggle to produce reliable prediction probabilities, which are crucial for transparency and decision-making. While explicit prompts can lead LLMs to generate probability estimates, their numerical reasoning limitations raise concerns about reliability. We compared explicit probabilities from text generation to implicit probabilities derived from the likelihood of predicting the correct label token. Across six advanced open-source LLMs and five medical datasets, explicit probabilities consistently underperformed implicit probabilities in discrimination, precision, and recall. This discrepancy is more pronounced with smaller LLMs and imbalanced datasets, highlighting the need for cautious interpretation, improved probability estimation methods, and further research for clinical use of LLMs.

Identifiers

PMID39702641
PMCPMC11659327

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.