about
Med-PaLM 2 reaches a score of 86.5% on MEDQA (USMLE) (arxiv.org)
3 points by archiv on May 17, 2023 | hide | past | pdf | 5 comments on HN

In plain words: A medical question-answering system improved by a stronger base model, extra medical training, and a trick that generates several answers and combines them. It hit 86.5% on medical licensing exam questions, and doctors preferred its answers to their own on 8 of 9 usefulness measures.

Abstract · Towards Expert-Level Medical Question Answering with Large Language Models

Recent artificial intelligence (AI) systems have reached milestones in "grand challenges" ranging from Go to protein-folding. The capability to retrieve medical knowledge, reason over it, and answer medical questions comparably to physicians has long been viewed as one such grand challenge. Large language models (LLMs) have catalyzed significant progress in medical question answering; Med-PaLM was the first model to exceed a "passing" score in US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) style questions with a score of 67.2% on the MedQA dataset. However, this and other prior work suggested significant room for improvement, especially when models' answers were compared to clinicians' answers. Here we present Med-PaLM 2, which bridges these gaps by leveraging a combination of base LLM improvements (PaLM 2), medical domain finetuning, and prompting strategies including a novel ensemble refinement approach. Med-PaLM 2 scored up to 86.5% on the MedQA dataset, improving upon Med-PaLM by over 19% and setting a new state-of-the-art. We also observed performance approaching or exceeding state-of-the-art across MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and MMLU clinical topics datasets. We performed detailed human evaluations on long-form questions along multiple axes relevant to clinical applications. In pairwise comparative ranking of 1066 consumer medical questions, physicians preferred Med-PaLM 2 answers to those produced by physicians on eight of nine axes pertaining to clinical utility (p < 0.001). We also observed significant improvements compared to Med-PaLM on every evaluation axis (p < 0.001) on newly introduced datasets of 240 long-form "adversarial" questions to probe LLM limitations. While further studies are necessary to validate the efficacy of these models in real-world settings, these results highlight rapid progress towards physician-level performance in medical question answering.

Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, Darlene Neal, Mike Schaekermann, Amy Wang, et al.
arXiv:2305.09617 · cs.CL, cs.AI, cs.LG · submitted May 16, 2023
abstract · pdf · html

add comment on HN
Also discussed: May 2023 (3 points, 0 comments) · May 2023 (3 points, 0 comments)

This is amazing, the physicians rate it better than answers by other physicians across the board. The only exception is sometimes it gives some irrelevant information. You might think this means the AI has more chance to give harmful information but they checked this and no, the physicians think the other physicians are the ones who give more harmful advice.

> "We developed this model using a combination of an improved base LLM (PaLM 2 [4]), medical domain-specific finetuning and a novel prompting strategy that enabled improved medical reasoning."

> "The PaLM 2 pre-training corpus is composed of a diverse set of sources: web documents, books, code, mathematics, and conversational data. The pre-training corpus is significantly larger than the corpus used to train PaLM"

It sparks joy in my heart that this AI doctor, who answers medical questions better than actual physicians, is almost certainly trained on 4chan greentexts and shitposts.

> "Interestingly, we see a drop in performance between GPT-4-base and the aligned (production) GPT-4 model on these multiple-choice benchmark"

This is not interesting if you know about GPT-4. When they lobotomized it, it became worse at everything except refusing to answer some questions.

Well not exactly - Table 6 is a bit concerning. It's meant to show that despite significant data contamination between testing and training datasets, the model still performs 'well'. Except look at those confidence intervals - they're all over the place, meaning the model performance isn't very reliable. You have confidence intervals comprising 30-40 percentage points!
Well not exactly - Table 6 isn't concerning at all to me.

> look at those confidence intervals - they're all over the place, meaning the model performance isn't very reliable. You have confidence intervals comprising 30-40 percentage points!

OK let's look at the confidence intervals. Let's look at the first row of the table. It has a pretty big confidence interval [76.0, 100.0] for its 'Performance (with Overlap)' entry.

Let's dig in to what this really means.

We can see from the first entry in that row only 12 of the 1273 questions from the 'MedQA (USMLE)' dataset had overlap (as they define it) with text in the training data. This is fewer than one percent of the questions. It's also a small absolute number. Twelve. The 'Performance (with Overlap)' entry is an attempt to judge how well the model does on these twelve questions. On average it does pretty well but there is a wide confidence interval because the number twelve, the number of questions that overlapped the training data, is so small. Because it's so small, it doesn't provide much of a sample size to estimate exactly how well the model does for questions that it has already seen.

Your objection is basically like 'there is so little data contamination between testing and training datasets, that there is not enough sample size to tell exactly how well the model does on questions that it has seen in training' which wouldn't make much sense as an objection. In particular, it doesn't mean that "the model performance isn't very reliable."

I see what you mean although I was specifically referring to the delta column. I might be misunderstanding it - can you explain the huge flux in the confidence intervals there? That’s what struck me.
> I was specifically referring to the delta column. I might be misunderstanding it - can you explain the huge flux in the confidence intervals there?

It's essentially the same reason. Some delta confidence intervals are wide like 'PubMedQA' for which only 6 test questions had overlap (as they define it) with the training data. The small sample size 6 made that interval wide. Some delta confidence intervals are much smaller like 'MedMCQA' which had 893 questions with overlap out of 4183 total questions. The large sample sizes for both classes (with overlap and without overlap) made that interval much more narrow.