Search

AI models have shown promise in many medical imaging tasks. However, our ability to explain what signals these models have learned is severely lacking. Explanations are needed in order to increase the trust in AI-based models, and could enable novel scientific discovery by uncovering signals in the data that are not yet known to experts. In this paper, we present a method for automatic visual explanations leveraging team-based expertise by generating hypotheses of what visual signals in the images are correlated with the task. We propose the following 4 steps: (i) Train a classifier to perform a given task (ii) Train a classifier guided StyleGAN-based image generator (StylEx) (iii) Automatically detect and visualize the top visual attributes that the classifier is sensitive towards (iv) Formulate hypotheses for the underlying mechanisms, to stimulate future research. Specifically, we present the discovered attributes to an interdisciplinary panel of experts so that hypotheses can account for social and structural determinants of health. We demonstrate results on eight prediction tasks across three medical imaging modalities: retinal fundus photographs, external eye photographs, and chest radiographs. We showcase examples of attributes that capture clinically known features, confounders that arise from factors beyond physiological mechanisms, and reveal a number of physiologically plausible novel attributes. Our approach has the potential to enable researchers to better understand, improve their assessment, and extract new knowledge from AI-based models. Importantly, we highlight that attributes generated by our framework can capture phenomena beyond physiology or pathophysiology, reflecting the real world nature of healthcare delivery and socio-cultural factors. Finally, we intend to release code to enable researchers to train their own StylEx models and analyze their predictive tasks., Comment: 34 pages, 1 figure

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.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation, but the quality bar for medical and clinical applications is high. Today, attempts to assess models' clinical knowledge typically rely on automated evaluations on limited benchmarks. There is no standard to evaluate model predictions and reasoning across a breadth of tasks. To address this, we present MultiMedQA, a benchmark combining six existing open question answering datasets spanning professional medical exams, research, and consumer queries; and HealthSearchQA, a new free-response dataset of medical questions searched online. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. In addition, we evaluate PaLM (a 540-billion parameter LLM) and its instruction-tuned variant, Flan-PaLM, on MultiMedQA. Using a combination of prompting strategies, Flan-PaLM achieves state-of-the-art accuracy on every MultiMedQA multiple-choice dataset (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, MMLU clinical topics), including 67.6% accuracy on MedQA (US Medical License Exam questions), surpassing prior state-of-the-art by over 17%. However, human evaluation reveals key gaps in Flan-PaLM responses. To resolve this we introduce instruction prompt tuning, a parameter-efficient approach for aligning LLMs to new domains using a few exemplars. The resulting model, Med-PaLM, performs encouragingly, but remains inferior to clinicians. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning, suggesting the potential utility of LLMs in medicine. Our human evaluations reveal important limitations of today's models, reinforcing the importance of both evaluation frameworks and method development in creating safe, helpful LLM models for clinical applications.

Background: Health risk assessments (HRAs), which often screen for depressive symptoms, are administered to millions of employees and health plan members each year. HRA data provide an opportunity to examine longitudinal trends in depressive symptomatology, as researchers have done previously with other populations. Objective: The primary research questions were: (1) Can we observe longitudinal trajectories in HRA populations like those observed in other study samples? (2) Do HRA variables, which primarily reflect modifiable health risks, help us to identify predictors associated with these trajectories? (3) Can we make meaningful recommendations for population health management, applicable to HRA participants, based on predictors we identify? Methods: This study used growth mixture modeling (GMM) to examine longitudinal trends in depressive symptomatology among 22,963 participants in a Web-based HRA used by US employers and health plans. The HRA assessed modifiable health risks and variables such as stress, sleep, and quality of life. Results: Five classes were identified: A “minimal depression” class (63.91%, 14,676/22,963) whose scores were consistently low across time, a “low risk” class (19.89%, 4568/22,963) whose condition remained subthreshold, a “deteriorating” class (3.15%, 705/22,963) who began at subthreshold but approached severe depression by the end of the study, a “chronic” class (4.71%, 1081/22,963) who remained highly depressed over time, and a “remitting” class (8.42%, 1933/22,963) who had moderate depression to start, but crossed into minimal depression by the end. Among those with subthreshold symptoms, individuals who were male (P