CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 53Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationSpeech and dialogue systemsMachine Learning in Healthcare

Polaris: A Safety-focused LLM Constellation Architecture for Healthcare

Open access
Mukherjee, Subhabrata, Gamble, Paul, Ausin, Markel Sanz, Kant, Neel, Aggarwal, Kriti, Manjunath, Neha, Datta, Debajyoti, Liu, Zhengliang +18 more·2024·arXiv
DOI 10.48550/arxiv.2403.13313arXiv 2403.13313
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

We develop Polaris, the first safety-focused LLM constellation for real-time patient-AI healthcare conversations. Unlike prior LLM works in healthcare focusing on tasks like question answering, our work specifically focuses on long multi-turn voice conversations. Our one-trillion parameter constellation system is composed of several multibillion parameter LLMs as co-operative agents: a stateful primary agent that focuses on driving an engaging conversation and several specialist support agents focused on healthcare tasks performed by nurses to increase safety and reduce hallucinations. We develop a sophisticated training protocol for iterative co-training of the agents that optimize for diverse objectives. We train our models on proprietary data, clinical care plans, healthcare regulatory documents, medical manuals, and other medical reasoning documents. We align our models to speak like medical professionals, using organic healthcare conversations and simulated ones between patient actors and experienced nurses. This allows our system to express unique capabilities such as rapport building, trust building, empathy and bedside manner. Finally, we present the first comprehensive clinician evaluation of an LLM system for healthcare. We recruited over 1100 U.S. licensed nurses and over 130 U.S. licensed physicians to perform end-to-end conversational evaluations of our system by posing as patients and rating the system on several measures. We demonstrate Polaris performs on par with human nurses on aggregate across dimensions such as medical safety, clinical readiness, conversational quality, and bedside manner. Additionally, we conduct a challenging task-based evaluation of the individual specialist support agents, where we demonstrate our LLM agents significantly outperform a much larger general-purpose LLM (GPT-4) as well as from its own medium-size class (LLaMA-2 70B).

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.2403.13313

Cites

0 citation errors · 0 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?

  • In diabetes care, LLMs are capable of analyzing diverse information sources such as electronic health records, clinical notes, medical literature, and patient-reported outcomes.

    “In the context of diabetes care, LLMs are capable of analyzing diverse information sources, such as electronic health records (EHRs), clinical notes, medical literature, and even patient-reported outcomes (12).”

    From Generative artificial intelligence in predictive analysis of diabetes and its complications: a narrative review (2025) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Healthcare specialization section describes clinical-note and EHR processing, while §§4.4 and 4.4.6 describe a specialist using EHR data and patient-reported lab values, including a diabetes-related A1C example. The paper does not establish that LLMs analyze medical literature or patient-reported outcomes as information sources specifically in diabetes care; its mention of medical literature concerns a suggestion for improving training. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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: 37

  1. Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774, 2023. · arXiv
  2. Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972):172-180, 2023.
  3. Amanda Jacobsen and Katherine DeNiro. Rash and Arthralgias in a Teenager With Autism. JAMA Pediatrics, 171(1):89-90, 01 2017. ISSN 2168-6203. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.15 65. URL https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.1565. · DOI
  4. Frans Awm Derksen, Jozien M. Bensing, and Antoine L M Lagro-Janssen. Effectiveness of empathy in general practice: a systematic review. The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 63 606:e76-84, 2013. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:16807968.
  5. Joshua Ainslie, James Lee-Thorp, Michiel de Jong, Yury Zemlyanskiy, Federico Lebrón, and Sumit Sanghai. Gqa: Training generalized multi-query transformer models from multi-head checkpoints. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.13245, 2023. · arXiv
  6. Biao Zhang and Rico Sennrich. Root mean square layer normalization. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 32, 2019.
  7. Noam Shazeer. Glu variants improve transformer. arXiv preprint arXiv:2002.05202, 2020. · arXiv
  8. Jeff Rasley, Samyam Rajbhandari, Olatunji Ruwase, and Yuxiong He. Deepspeed: System optimizations enable training deep learning models with over 100 billion parameters. In Proceedings of the 26th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery & Data Mining, pages 3505-3506, 2020.
  9. M Cardona-Morrell, M Prgomet, R Lake, M Nicholson, R Harrison, J Long, J Westbrook, J Braithwaite, and K Hillman. Vital signs monitoring and nurse-patient interaction: A qualitative observational study of hospital practice. International journal of nursing studies, 56:9-16, 2016.
  10. Saranya Pongudom and Yingyong Chinthammitr. Determination of normal hba1c levels in non-diabetic patients with hemoglobin e. Annals of Clinical & Laboratory Science, 49(6): 804-809, 2019.
  11. Paul K Whelton, Robert M Carey, Wilbert S Aronow, Donald E Casey, Karen J Collins, Cheryl Dennison Himmelfarb, Sondra M DePalma, Samuel Gidding, Kenneth A Jamerson, Daniel W Jones, et al. 2017 acc/aha/aapa/abc/acpm/ags/apha/ash/aspc/nma/pcna guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults: a report of the american college of cardiology/american heart association task force on clinical practice guidelines. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 71(19):e127-e248, 2018.
  12. William G Murphy. The sex difference in haemoglobin levels in adults-mechanisms, causes, and consequences. Blood reviews, 28(2):41-47, 2014.
  13. B Komoroski, N Vachharajani, D Boulton, D Kornhauser, M Geraldes, L Li, and M Pfister. Dapagliflozin, a novel sglt2 inhibitor, induces dose-dependent glucosuria in healthy subjects. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics, 85(5):520-526, 2009.
  14. Patrick Lewis, Ethan Perez, Aleksandra Piktus, Fabio Petroni, Vladimir Karpukhin, Naman Goyal, Heinrich Küttler, Mike Lewis, Wen-tau Yih, Tim Rocktäschel, et al. Retrieval-augmented generation for knowledge-intensive nlp tasks. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, 33:9459-9474, 2020.
  15. Yunfan Gao, Yun Xiong, Xinyu Gao, Kangxiang Jia, Jinliu Pan, Yuxi Bi, Yi Dai, Jiawei Sun, and Haofen Wang. Retrieval-augmented generation for large language models: A survey. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.10997, 2023. · arXiv
  16. Jenna Wiens, Suchi Saria, Mark P. Sendak, Marzyeh Ghassemi, Vincent X. Liu, Finale Doshi- Velez, Kenneth Jung, Katherine A. Heller, David C. Kale, Mohammed Saeed, Pilar N. Ossorio, Sonoo Thadaney-Israni, and Anna Goldenberg. Do no harm: a roadmap for responsible machine learning for health care. Nature Medicine, 25:1337 -1340, 2019. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:201060023.
  17. Dave Van Veen, Cara Van Uden, Louis Blankemeier, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Asad Aali, Chris- tian Bluethgen, Anuj Pareek, Malgorzata Polacin, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Anna Seehofnerová, et al. Adapted large language models can outperform medical experts in clinical text summa- rization. Nature Medicine, pages 1-9, 2024.
  18. Lucas M. Fleuren, Thomas Klausch, Charlotte L. Zwager, Linda J. Schoonmade, Tingjie Guo, Luca F Roggeveen, Eleonora L Swart, Armand R. J. Girbes, Patrick J. Thoral, Ari Ercole, Mark Hoogendoorn, and Paul W. G. Elbers. Machine learning for the prediction of sepsis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy. Intensive Care Medicine, 46: 383 -400, 2020. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:210835013.
  19. Konstantina D. Kourou, Themis P. Exarchos, Konstantinos P. Exarchos, Michalis V. Karamouzis, and Dimitrios Ioannis Fotiadis. Machine learning applications in cancer prognosis and prediction. Computational and Structural Biotechnology Journal, 13:8 -17, 2014. URL https://api.sema nticscholar.org/CorpusID:15315839.
  20. David W. Bates, David Michael Levine, Hojjat Salmasian, Ania Syrowatka, David M. Shahian, Stuart R. Lipsitz, Jonathan P. Zebrowski, Laura C. Myers, Merranda Logan, Christopher G. Roy, Christine Iannaccone, Michelle Frits, Lynn A. Volk, Sevan M. Dulgarian, Mary G. Amato, Heba H. Edrees, Luke Sato, Patricia H Folcarelli, Jonathan S. Einbinder, Mark E. Reynolds, and Elizabeth A. Mort. The safety of inpatient health care. The New England journal of medicine, 388 2:142-153, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:255748646.
  21. David E Newman-Toker, Susan Marie Peterson, Shervin Badihian, Ahmed Hassoon, Najlla Nassery, Donna Parizadeh, Lisa M. Wilson, Yuanxi Jia, Rodney Omron, Saraniya Tharmarajah, Liam Guerin, Pouya B. Bastani, Elizabeth A Fracica, Susrutha Kotwal, and Karen A. Robinson. Diagnostic errors in the emergency department: A systematic review. 2022. URL https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:254767677.
  22. David R Williams, Selina A Mohammed, Jacinta Leavell, and Chiquita Collins. Race, socioeco- nomic status, and health: complexities, ongoing challenges, and research opportunities. Annals of the new York Academy of Sciences, 1186(1):69-101, 2010.
  23. Chloë Fitzgerald and Samia Hurst. Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review. BMC Medical Ethics, 18, 2017. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:13574969.
  24. Jasmine R. Marcelin, Dawd S. Siraj, Robert Victor, Shaila Kotadia, and Yvonne Maldonado. The impact of unconscious bias in healthcare: How to recognize and mitigate it. The Journal of infectious diseases, 220 Supplement_2:S62-S73, 2019. URL https://api.semanticscholar. org/CorpusID:201117683.
  25. Melissa Mccradden, Shalmali Joshi, James A. Anderson, Mjaye L. Mazwi, Anna Goldenberg, and Randi Zlotnik Shaul. Patient safety and quality improvement: Ethical principles for a regulatory approach to bias in healthcare machine learning. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA, 2020. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:220077699.
  26. Michael Wornow, Yizhe Xu, Rahul Thapa, Birju S. Patel, Ethan H. Steinberg, S. Fleming, Michael A. Pfeffer, Jason A. Fries, and Nigam H. Shah. The shaky foundations of large language models and foundation models for electronic health records. NPJ Digital Medicine, 6, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:260315526.
  27. Valentin Liévin, Christoffer Egeberg Hother, and Ole Winther. Can large language models reason about medical questions? arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.08143, 2022. · arXiv
  28. Harsha Nori, Nicholas King, Scott Mayer McKinney, Dean Carignan, and Eric Horvitz. Capa- bilities of gpt-4 on medical challenge problems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.13375, 2023. · arXiv
  29. Marco Guevara, Shan Chen, Spencer Angus Thomas, Tafadzwa L Chaunzwa, Idalid Franco, Benjamin H. Kann, Shalini Moningi, Jack M Qian, Madeleine H Goldstein, Susan M. Harper, Hugo J.W.L. Aerts, Guergana K. Savova, Raymond H. Mak, and Danielle S. Bitterman. Large language models to identify social determinants of health in electronic health records. NPJ Digital Medicine, 7, 2023. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:260887020.
  30. Xuanzhong Chen, Xiaohao Mao, Qihan Guo, Lun Wang, Shuyang Zhang, and Ting Chen. Rarebench: Can llms serve as rare diseases specialists? ArXiv, abs/2402.06341, 2024. URL https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:267617076. · arXiv
  31. Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Mike Schaekermann, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Nenad Tomasev, et al. Towards conversational diagnostic ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05654, 2024. · arXiv
  32. Akhil Vaid, Joshua Lampert, Juhee Lee, Ashwin Sawant, Donald Apakama, Ankit Sakhuja, Ali Soroush, Denise Lee, Isotta Landi, Nicole Bussola, et al. Generative large language models are autonomous practitioners of evidence-based medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.02851, 2024. · arXiv
  33. Dave Van Veen, Cara Van Uden, Louis Blankemeier, Jean-Benoit Delbrouck, Asad Aali, Chris- tian Bluethgen, Anuj Pareek, Malgorzata Polacin, Eduardo Pontes Reis, Anna Seehofnerova, et al. Clinical text summarization: Adapting large language models can outperform human experts. Research Square, 2023.
  34. Timothy Rennie, Jennifer Marriott, and Tina P Brock. Global supply of health professionals. N Engl J Med, 370(23):2246-7, 2014.
  35. Karen Nieuwenhuijsen, David Bruinvels, and Monique Frings-Dresen. Psychosocial work environment and stress-related disorders, a systematic review. Occupational medicine, 60(4): 277-286, 2010.
  36. Shari M Erickson, Brooke Rockwern, Michelle Koltov, Robert M McLean, Medical Practice, and Quality Committee of the American College of Physicians*. Putting patients first by reducing administrative tasks in health care: a position paper of the american college of physicians. Annals of internal medicine, 166(9):659-661, 2017.
  37. Christine Sinsky, Lacey Colligan, Ling Li, Mirela Prgomet, Sam Reynolds, Lindsey Goeders, Johanna Westbrook, Michael Tutty, and George Blike. Allocation of physician time in ambula- tory practice: a time and motion study in 4 specialties. Annals of internal medicine, 165(11): 753-760, 2016.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mukherjee, S., Gamble, P., Ausin, M. S., Kant, N., Aggarwal, K., Manjunath, N., Datta, D., Liu, Z., Ding, J., Busacca, S., Bianco, C., Sharma, S., Lasko, R., Voisard, M., Harneja, S., Filippova, D., Meixiong, G., Cha, K., Youssefi, A., Buvanesh, M., Weingram, H., Bierman-Lytle, S., Mangat, H. S., Parikh, K., Godil, S., & Miller, A.
ORCID
Venue
arXiv
Publisher
arXiv
Published
2024
ISSN
2331-8422 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.2403.13313
arXiv
2403.13313
OpenAlex
W4393063231
Cited by
17
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
Locations
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Speech and dialogue systems
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
Keywords
hallucination mitigation, medical safety, bedside manner, rapport building

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