DERA: Enhancing Large Language Model Completions with Dialog-Enabled Resolving Agents

AI-generated keywords: Dialog-enabled Resolving Agents Medical Conversation Summarization GPT-4 MEDQA Dataset Accuracy

AI-generated Key Points

  • Large language models (LLMs) are valuable tools for natural language understanding tasks in safety-critical applications such as healthcare.
  • The accuracy and completeness of LLMs' outputs are crucial for their utility.
  • Dialog-enabled resolving agents (DERA) leverage the conversational abilities of LLMs to provide a forum for models to communicate feedback and improve output.
  • DERA can be used for medical conversation summarization, which involves encapsulating patient-doctor conversations into structured summaries that accurately capture important information.
  • DERA setup involves two agent types - a Researcher and a Decider - who both have access to the full medical conversation between the patient and physician.
  • Human evaluation studies showed that physicians preferred DERA-generated summaries over initial GPT-4 generated summaries by 90% to 10% and captured far more clinical information than initial GPT-4 generated summaries.
  • The study demonstrates the potential of DERA as a valuable tool for improving the accuracy and completeness of medical conversation summarization.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Varun Nair, Elliot Schumacher, Geoffrey Tso, Anitha Kannan

License: CC BY 4.0

Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as valuable tools for many natural language understanding tasks. In safety-critical applications such as healthcare, the utility of these models is governed by their ability to generate outputs that are factually accurate and complete. In this work, we present dialog-enabled resolving agents (DERA). DERA is a paradigm made possible by the increased conversational abilities of LLMs, namely GPT-4. It provides a simple, interpretable forum for models to communicate feedback and iteratively improve output. We frame our dialog as a discussion between two agent types - a Researcher, who processes information and identifies crucial problem components, and a Decider, who has the autonomy to integrate the Researcher's information and makes judgments on the final output. We test DERA against three clinically-focused tasks. For medical conversation summarization and care plan generation, DERA shows significant improvement over the base GPT-4 performance in both human expert preference evaluations and quantitative metrics. In a new finding, we also show that GPT-4's performance (70%) on an open-ended version of the MedQA question-answering (QA) dataset (Jin et al. 2021, USMLE) is well above the passing level (60%), with DERA showing similar performance. We release the open-ended MEDQA dataset at https://github.com/curai/curai-research/tree/main/DERA.

Submitted to arXiv on 30 Mar. 2023

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 2303.17071v1

Large language models (LLMs) have become increasingly valuable tools for natural language understanding tasks, including those in safety-critical applications such as healthcare. However, the utility of these models is dependent on their ability to generate outputs that are factually accurate and complete. To address this challenge, researchers have developed dialog-enabled resolving agents (DERA), which leverage the conversational abilities of LLMs like GPT-4 to provide a simple and interpretable forum for models to communicate feedback and iteratively improve output. One specific application of DERA is medical conversation summarization, which involves encapsulating patient-doctor conversations into structured summaries that accurately capture important information. The goal is to provide doctors with useful summaries for downstream tasks such as clinical decision-making. In this study, the researchers focused on summarizing patient-doctor chats into six independent sections: Demographics and Social Determinants of Health, Medical Intent, Pertinent Positives, Pertinent Negatives, Pertinent Unknowns, and Medical History. The DERA setup for medical conversation summarization involves two agent types - a Researcher and a Decider - who both have access to the full medical conversation between the patient and physician. The Decider generates an initial summary of the medical conversation and shares it with the Researcher. The Researcher's role is to identify any discrepancies in the summary and point them out to the Decider. The Decider then either accepts or rejects these suggestions before writing accepted suggestions to a shared scratchpad that it uses at the end of the conversation to generate the final summary. To evaluate DERA's effectiveness in generating better summaries than base GPT-4 performance, human evaluation studies were conducted with four licensed physicians on a random subset of 50 encounters from a dataset containing 500 medical encounters from a chat-based telehealth platform. Results showed that physicians preferred DERA-generated summaries over initial GPT-4 generated summaries by 90% to 10%. Additionally, DERA summaries captured far more clinical information than initial GPT-4 generated summaries. The amount of summaries containing "harmful" information dropped from 2% in the initial summary to 0% in the final DERA summary. Overall, this study demonstrates the potential of DERA as a valuable tool for improving the accuracy and completeness of medical conversation summarization. The researchers also released an open-ended MEDQA dataset at https://github.com/curai/curai-research/tree/main/DERA for further research and development. However, it is important to note that these findings are limited in number and drawn from a patient population specific to the telehealth platform so caution should be exercised when generalizing these results to other settings.
Created on 09 May. 2023

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

The previous summary was created more than a year ago and can be re-run (if necessary) by clicking on the Run button below.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.