Cited by 4Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSpeech and dialogue systemsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Integrating Physician Diagnostic Logic into Large Language Models: Preference Learning from Process Feedback

Open access
Dou, Chengfeng, Zhang, Ying, Jin, Zhi, Jiao, Wenpin, Zhao, Haiyan, Zhao, Yongqiang, Tao, Zhengwei·2024·Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024

Abstract

The utilization of large language models for medical dialogue generation has attracted considerable attention due to its potential to enhance response richness and coherence.While previous studies have made strides in optimizing model performance, there is a pressing need to bolster the model's capacity for diagnostic logic to ensure patient safety.In response to this need, we propose an approach termed preference learning from process feedback (PLPF), which involves integrating the doctor's diagnostic logic into LLMs.PLPF encompasses three key components: rule modeling, preference data generation, and preference alignment.These components collectively serve to train the model to adhere to the diagnostic process.Our experimental results, utilizing Standardized Patient Testing, demonstrate that PLPF enhances the diagnostic accuracy of the baseline model in medical conversations by 17.6%, surpassing the performance of traditional approaches.Moreover, PLPF exhibits effectiveness in both multi-round and single-round dialogue tasks, thereby highlighting its potential in improving medical dialogue generation.Our dataset is available at https://github. com/Chengfeng-Dou/SpTesting D. Doctors are obliged to give a reasonable explanation of their diagnosis and proposed treatment.E. Doctors should not evade a patient's questions without providing a reasonable explanation.F. Doctors should actively seek relevant information from patients for their diagnosis.A. Before diagnosing and guiding the patient, doctors needs to carefully verify the patient's condition.B. Doctors should inform patients about their disease or the tests needed for diagnosis.C. Doctors should inform patients of treatment options for the disease. Goal-oriented rulesConstraint-oriented rules F. Be proactive in collecting patient information E. Answer patient questions in a positive way A.Collecting patient information B. Making a diagnosis C. Informing about treatment B. Recommending for medical testing Yes No B. Can a diagnosis be made?Start End D. Explaining

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.18653/v1/2024.findings-acl.144

Cites

0 citation errors · 2 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • RLHF can improve model responses to be more accurate and aligned with human-like diagnostic reasoning.

    “Additionally, one study showed that RLHF can improve model responses to be more accurate and aligned with human-like diagnostic reasoning36.”

    From Enhancing diagnostic capability with multi-agents conversational large language models (2025) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Abstract and Conclusion report that PLPF integrates physicians’ diagnostic logic and improves diagnostic accuracy by 17.6% in standardized patient testing. But §2.4 says the study trains on preference data using direct preference optimization (DPO), not RLHF; the Introduction distinguishes PLPF from traditional approaches. The result supports the claimed improvement, but not its attribution to RLHF. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Zhengxiao Du, Yujie Qian, Xiao Liu, Ming Ding, Jiezhong Qiu, Zhilin Yang, and Jie Tang. 2022. Glm: General language model pretraining with autoregres- sive blank infilling. In Proceedings of the 60th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics (Volume 1: Long Papers), pages 320-335.
  2. Junqing He, Mingming Fu, and Manshu Tu. 2019. Ap- plying deep matching networks to chinese medical question answering: a study and a dataset. BMC med- ical informatics and decision making, 19(2):91-100.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dou, C., Zhang, Y., Jin, Z., Jiao, W., Zhao, H., Zhao, Y., & Tao, Z.
Affiliations
  • Peking University (CN)
  • Beijing Jiaotong University (CN)
Venue
Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics ACL 2024
Published
2024
Pages
2453-2473
OpenAlex
W4402670852
Cited by
4
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3
FWCI
1.08
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: ACL (Findings of ACL) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Funders
National Natural Science Foundation of China (62192731)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
large language models, diagnostic logic, rule modeling, preference alignment, patient safety, multi-turn dialogue

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review