arXiv subjects

Maxwell B. Singer

Publications and source records attributed to Maxwell B. Singer.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

Rethinking Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Medicine: A Large-Scale, Systematic Expert Evaluation and Practical Insights

Large language models (LLMs) are transforming the landscape of medicine, yet two fundamental challenges persist: keeping up with rapidly evolving medical knowledge and providing verifiable, evidence-grounded reasoning. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has been widely adopted to address these limitations by supplementing model outputs with retrieved evidence. However, whether RAG reliably achieves these goals remains unclear. Here, we present the most comprehensive expert evaluation of RAG in medicine to date. Eighteen medical experts contributed a total of 80,502 annotations, assessing 800 model outputs generated by GPT-4o and Llama-3.1-8B across 200 real-world patient and USMLE-style queries. We systematically decomposed the RAG pipeline into three components: (i) evidence retrieval (relevance of retrieved passages), (ii) evidence selection (accuracy of evidence usage), and (iii) response generation (factuality and completeness of outputs). Contrary to expectation, standard RAG often degraded performance: only 22% of top-16 passages were relevant, evidence selection remained weak (precision 41-43%, recall 27-49%), and factuality and completeness dropped by up to 6% and 5%, respectively, compared with non-RAG variants. Retrieval and evidence selection remain key failure points for the model, contributing to the overall performance drop. We further show that simple yet effective strategies, including evidence filtering and query reformulation, substantially mitigate these issues, improving performance on MedMCQA and MedXpertQA by up to 12% and 8.2%, respectively. These findings call for re-examining RAG's role in medicine and highlight the importance of stage-aware evaluation and deliberate system design for reliable medical LLM applications.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation

The rising prevalence of eye diseases poses a growing public health burden. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making. However, few have been tailored for ophthalmology, and most evaluations focus mainly on knowledge-based QA without clinically relevant benchmarks or real-world validation. Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process: (1) instruction tuning on 200,000 samples from clinical guidelines, textbooks, and case reports to enhance reasoning and task-following, and (2) reinforcement learning with ~30,000 preference labels to enhance accuracy and informativeness. LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning. It outperformed all seven baselines (all p < 0.004), exceeding GPT-4o by 3.32% (absolute ROUGE-L gain). It was further evaluated on three downstream tasks using deidentified patient data, reviewed by clinicians. In patient QA, LEME received the highest ratings from attending clinicians in 3 out of 4 criteria, with scores of 4.67 for factuality, 4.77 for specificity, 4.79 for completeness, and 4.88 for safety (1-5 scale). Its completeness score surpassed that of expert-written answers (4.79 vs. 4.56; p = 0.015). In visual acuity extraction, LEME achieved the highest F1, outperforming LLaMA-3 by 14.1% and Eye-LLaMA by 59.0%. In a pilot evaluation on assessment and treatment planning for diabetic retinopathy, AMD, and glaucoma, LEME received scores of 4.36 for factuality, 4.55 for specificity, 4.42 for completeness, and 4.36 for safety, approaching attending-level performance. All models, data, and code will be released to support further development and clinical translation, laying the groundwork for improved efficiency and patient care

cs.CL↗

arXiv2023

Benchmarking large language models for biomedical natural language processing applications and recommendations

The rapid growth of biomedical literature poses challenges for manual knowledge curation and synthesis. Biomedical Natural Language Processing (BioNLP) automates the process. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown promise in general domains, their effectiveness in BioNLP tasks remains unclear due to limited benchmarks and practical guidelines. We perform a systematic evaluation of four LLMs, GPT and LLaMA representatives on 12 BioNLP benchmarks across six applications. We compare their zero-shot, few-shot, and fine-tuning performance with traditional fine-tuning of BERT or BART models. We examine inconsistencies, missing information, hallucinations, and perform cost analysis. Here we show that traditional fine-tuning outperforms zero or few shot LLMs in most tasks. However, closed-source LLMs like GPT-4 excel in reasoning-related tasks such as medical question answering. Open source LLMs still require fine-tuning to close performance gaps. We find issues like missing information and hallucinations in LLM outputs. These results offer practical insights for applying LLMs in BioNLP.

cs.CL↗