PreprintCited by 7Topic ModelingBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education

The DOI matches its DataCite record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

covLLM: Large Language Models for COVID-19 Biomedical Literature

Open access

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic led to 1.1 million deaths in the United States, despite the explosion of coronavirus research. These new findings are slow to translate to clinical interventions, leading to poorer patient outcomes and unnecessary deaths. One reason is that clinicians, overwhelmed by patients, struggle to keep pace with the rate of new coronavirus literature. A potential solution is developing a tool for evaluating coronavirus literature using large language models (LLMs) -- neural networks that are deployed for natural language processing. LLMs can be used to summarize and extract user-specified information. The greater availability and advancement of LLMs and pre-processed coronavirus literature databases provide the opportunity to assist clinicians in evaluating coronavirus literature through a coronavirus literature specific LLM (covLLM), a tool that directly takes an inputted research article and a user query to return an answer. Using the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset (CORD-19), we produced two datasets: (1) synCovid, which uses a combination of handwritten prompts and synthetic prompts generated using OpenAI, and (2) real abstracts, which contains abstract and title pairs. covLLM was trained with LLaMA 7B as a baseline model to produce three models trained on (1) the Alpaca and synCovid datasets, (2) the synCovid dataset, and (3) the synCovid and real abstract datasets. These models were evaluated by two human evaluators and ChatGPT. Results demonstrate that training covLLM on the synCovid and abstract pairs datasets performs competitively with ChatGPT and outperforms covLLM trained primarily using the Alpaca dataset.

Overview

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

DataCite · 10.48550/arxiv.2306.04926

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 : Figure 1: Diagram of synthetic data generation (synCovid), with examples of a seed task and a generated task. Handwritten prompts and abstracts sampled from CORD-19 were fed into gpt-turbo-3.5 to generate expected outputs, which were manually audited. Then, the seed tasks and a directed prompt were fed to text-davinci-003 to generate synCovid.
Figure 1 : Figure 1: Diagram of synthetic data generation (synCovid), with examples of a seed task and a generated task. Handwritten prompts and abstracts sampled from CORD-19 were fed into gpt-turbo-3.5 to generate expected outputs, which were manually audited. Then, the seed tasks and a directed prompt were fed to text-davinci-003 to generate synCovid.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 2 . Figure 2. User interface for human evaluators. Instruction, input and the response were response were provided. Evaluators ranked and graded each model response.
Figure 2 . Figure 2. User interface for human evaluators. Instruction, input and the response were response were provided. Evaluators ranked and graded each model response.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 3 . Figure 3. Distribution of verb-subject combinations from synCovid instructions. For readability, only the top 5% of subject-verb combinations are shown.
Figure 3 . Figure 3. Distribution of verb-subject combinations from synCovid instructions. For readability, only the top 5% of subject-verb combinations are shown.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 4 : Figure 4: Distribution of study types of generated inputs (left) and comparison of complete versus incomplete generated inputs (right).
Figure 4 : Figure 4: Distribution of study types of generated inputs (left) and comparison of complete versus incomplete generated inputs (right).CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 5 . Figure 5. Example of a complete generated input (left) and partially complete generated input (right). Key parts of the abstract are bolded. Note that the complete input has a background, objective, methods, results, and conclusion. Note also that the incomplete input is missing background information and conclusions.
Figure 5 . Figure 5. Example of a complete generated input (left) and partially complete generated input (right). Key parts of the abstract are bolded. Note that the complete input has a background, objective, methods, results, and conclusion. Note also that the incomplete input is missing background information and conclusions.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 6 . Figure 6. Alpaca 52K and synthetic covid combined dataset training and evaluation loss curves run over three epochs.
Figure 6 . Figure 6. Alpaca 52K and synthetic covid combined dataset training and evaluation loss curves run over three epochs.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 7 . Figure 7. The two left panels are from the synthetic covid19 dataset only (1097 instructions) and the right two panels are from the synthetic covid19 dataset and the real abstract pairs database (2194 instructions). Both regimens show a decrease in training and evaluation loss over 30 epochs of data.
Figure 7 . Figure 7. The two left panels are from the synthetic covid19 dataset only (1097 instructions) and the right two panels are from the synthetic covid19 dataset and the real abstract pairs database (2194 instructions). Both regimens show a decrease in training and evaluation loss over 30 epochs of data.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 8 . Figure 8. All four models average grade across 26 test prompts.
Figure 8 . Figure 8. All four models average grade across 26 test prompts.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF
Figure 9 . Figure 9. Preference for all evaluators (human and chatGPT), comparing our models to chatGPT across 26 prompts.
Figure 9 . Figure 9. Preference for all evaluators (human and chatGPT), comparing our models to chatGPT across 26 prompts.CC-BY-NC-SA · From the PDF

Verification

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?

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. COVID-19 Treatments. NIH COVID-19 Research. Accessed May 2, 2023. https://covid19.nih.gov/covid- 19-treatments 6. COVID-19 research update: How many pandemic papers have been published? Nature Index. Published August 28, 2020. Accessed May 2, 2023. https://www.nature.com/nature-index/news-blog/how- coronavirus-is-changing-research-practices-and-publishing
  2. Ioannidis JPA, Salholz-Hillel M, Boyack KW, Baas J. The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature. R Soc Open Sci. 2021;8(9):210389. doi:10.1098/rsos.210389 · DOI
  3. Park JJH, Mogg R, Smith GE, et al. How COVID-19 has fundamentally changed clinical research in global health. Lancet Glob Health. 2021;9(5):e711-e720. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(20)30542-8 · DOI
  4. How the Google AI Community Used Cloud to Help Biomedical Researchers. Google Cloud Blog. Accessed May 2, 2023. https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/google-ai-community- used-cloud-to-help-biomedical-researchers 14. Lever J, Altman RB. Analyzing the vast coronavirus literature with CoronaCentral. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(23):e2100766118. doi:10.1073/pnas.2100766118 · DOI
  5. Wang LL, Lo K, Chandrasekhar Y, et al. CORD-19: The COVID-19 Open Research Dataset. Published online July 10, 2020. Accessed May 2, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2004.10706 · arXiv
  6. Wang Y, Kordi Y, Mishra S, et al. Self-Instruct: Aligning Language Model with Self Generated Instructions. Published online December 20, 2022. Accessed May 2, 2023. http://arxiv.org/abs/2212.10560 · arXiv
  7. Zhou C, Liu P, Xu P, et al. LIMA: Less Is More for Alignment. Published online May 18, 2023. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2305.11206 · DOI · Paper page
  8. Hu EJ, Shen Y, Wallis P, et al. LoRA: Low-Rank Adaptation of Large Language Models. Published online October 16, 2021. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2106.09685 · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 7

Metadata

Authors
Khan, Y. A., Hokia, C., Xu, J., & Ehlert, B.
Affiliations
  • Stanford Medicine (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2023
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4380136292
Cited by
7
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Biomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Keywords
large language models, COVID-19 pandemic, biomedical literature, CORD-19, clinical decision support, literature evaluation, llamas, alpaca, question answering, scientific abstracts

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