They are using the “gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems” not a proxy for what a doctor actually does when diagnosing someone.
It may have some utility after diagnosis, but this test doesn’t demonstrate utility for patients.
Not quite. An LLM generates text that would likely follow. The sky is… “blue”. A patient in pain with a bone protruding from their shin has a… “broken leg”.
The more training data, the more questions it can answer with a reasonable degree of probability of accuracy.
Throwing away a potentially useful analysis just because it’s probabilistic seems a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Yes that’s my point. An LLM can clearly accurately predict obvious cases, so it’s reasonable to assume that it can predict less obvious cases with somewhat less accuracy.
The real question is where’s the cut-off point between accuracy and utility.
Remember: a second human opinion can also be wrong, and even a wrong opinion can still be useful (especially in medicine where differential diagnoses are a common practice - if the LLM gives you a useless opinion, you rule it out and move on).
I don’t think it’s particularly unreasonable to think that an LLM would have enough literature, or enough reasoning ability, to be able to generate a plausible interpretation of the data. A human can then review and say either “yeah that’s clearly not the case here” or “hmm, actually that could explain it, maybe we should order another test”.
