Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
41 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
59 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
41 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
7 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
50 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

LLMD: A Large Language Model for Interpreting Longitudinal Medical Records (2410.12860v1)

Published 11 Oct 2024 in cs.CL and cs.AI
LLMD: A Large Language Model for Interpreting Longitudinal Medical Records

Abstract: We introduce LLMD, a LLM designed to analyze a patient's medical history based on their medical records. Along with domain knowledge, LLMD is trained on a large corpus of records collected over time and across facilities, as well as tasks and labels that make nuanced connections among them. This approach is critical to an accurate picture of patient health, and has distinctive advantages over models trained on knowledge alone, unlabeled records, structured EHR data, or records from a single health system. The recipe for LLMD continues pretraining a foundational model on both domain knowledge and the contents of millions of records. These span an average of 10 years of care and as many as 140 care sites per patient. LLMD is then instruction fine-tuned on structuring and abstraction tasks. The former jointly identify and normalize document metadata, provenance information, clinical named-entities, and ontology mappings, while the latter roll these into higher-level representations, such a continuous era of time a patient was on a medication. LLMD is deployed within a layered validation system that includes continual random audits and review by experts, e.g. based on uncertainty, disease-specific rules, or use-case. LLMD exhibits large gains over both more-powerful generalized models and domain-specific models. On medical knowledge benchmarks, LLMD-8B achieves state of the art accuracy on PubMedQA text responses, besting orders-of-magnitude larger models. On production tasks, we show that LLMD significantly outperforms all other models evaluated, and among alternatives, large general purpose LLMs like GPT-4o are more accurate than models emphasizing medical knowledge. We find strong evidence that accuracy on today's medical benchmarks is not the most significant factor when analyzing real-world patient data, an insight with implications for future medical LLMs.'

Analyzing Longitudinal Medical Records Through a Specialized LLM

This essay provides a detailed overview of the paper titled "LLMD: A LLM for Interpreting Longitudinal Medical Records," focusing on the methodologies, results, and implications in the field of medical AI. The paper presents an LLM, LLMD, tailored specifically for interpreting extensive medical histories through patient records.

Overview of LLMD's Methodology

The paper outlines a two-stage training approach for LLMD. Initially, LLMD undergoes continued pre-training on a blend of domain-specific knowledge and a substantial corpus of medical records. This corpus comprises electronic and paper records sourced from numerous facilities, representing an average patient history spanning a decade. This phase aims to adapt the foundational model to the unique data patterns intrinsic to medical documentation.

Subsequently, the model is fine-tuned through task-specific instruction, focusing on structuring and abstraction tasks. Structuring involves normalizing document metadata and clinical named entities, while abstraction tasks synthesize higher-level representations, such as identifying medication eras. This bifurcation supports LLMD's ability to draw actionable insights from complex, real-world data.

Numerical Results and Comparative Analysis

LLMD-8B demonstrates substantial gains over more generalized models and domain-specific ones on medical knowledge benchmarks. Notably, it achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on the PubMedQA benchmark, surpassing larger models despite its relatively smaller parameter count. This highlights the effectiveness of LLMD’s training regimen in leveraging both medical records and domain knowledge to produce accurate outputs.

In practice, LLMD significantly outperforms on production tasks, underscoring that benchmark accuracy does not necessarily translate to real-world efficacy. This is evident in LLMD’s performance on nuanced tasks requiring interpretation of longitudinal data, where it consistently provides accurate results, often superior to large general models like GPT-4o.

Implications and Future Directions

The research illustrates that while large general-purpose models possess inherent advantages, they struggle without alignment on specific domain data. LLMD’s approach of incorporating labeled, longitudinal datasets proves crucial for accurate real-world application. The importance of structuring and abstraction in aligning LLM capabilities with practical needs offers a roadmap for developing future medical LLMs.

For medical AI, this work implies a shift towards more specialized models trained on comprehensive datasets, facilitated by robust validation frameworks. This ensures the models not only understand medical knowledge but also apply it effectively to patient care scenarios.

Challenges such as handling long-tail data underscore the need for adaptive learning strategies. The authors address this by implementing task decomposition and context generation strategies, yet emphasize that enhanced datasets would further mitigate performance discrepancies.

Conclusion

LLMD exemplifies the evolution of LLMs toward domain-specific expertise, particularly in interpreting multifaceted medical data. This paper’s findings advocate for expanding training datasets and developing specialized validation systems to elevate the model’s practical efficiency. By aligning technical methodologies with patient care needs, LLMD stands as a pivotal advancement in medical informatics, fostering improved patient interactions and contributing substantively to medical research and treatment development.

User Edit Pencil Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Authors (10)
  1. Robert Porter (2 papers)
  2. Adam Diehl (1 paper)
  3. Benjamin Pastel (1 paper)
  4. J. Henry Hinnefeld (5 papers)
  5. Lawson Nerenberg (1 paper)
  6. Pye Maung (1 paper)
  7. Sebastien Kerbrat (1 paper)
  8. Gillian Hanson (1 paper)
  9. Troy Astorino (1 paper)
  10. Stephen J. Tarsa (2 papers)