Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1-31-2024
Original Citation
Groza T,
Caufield H,
Gration D,
Baynam G,
Haendel M,
Robinson P,
Mungall C,
Reese J.
An evaluation of GPT models for phenotype concept recognition. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024;24(1):30
Keywords
JGM, Humans, Knowledge, Language, Machine Learning, Phenotype, Rare Diseases
JAX Source
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2024;24(1):30
ISSN
1472-6947
PMID
38297371
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02439-w
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Clinical deep phenotyping and phenotype annotation play a critical role in both the diagnosis of patients with rare disorders as well as in building computationally-tractable knowledge in the rare disorders field. These processes rely on using ontology concepts, often from the Human Phenotype Ontology, in conjunction with a phenotype concept recognition task (supported usually by machine learning methods) to curate patient profiles or existing scientific literature. With the significant shift in the use of large language models (LLMs) for most NLP tasks, we examine the performance of the latest Generative Pre-trained Transformer (GPT) models underpinning ChatGPT as a foundation for the tasks of clinical phenotyping and phenotype annotation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experimental setup of the study included seven prompts of various levels of specificity, two GPT models (gpt-3.5-turbo and gpt-4.0) and two established gold standard corpora for phenotype recognition, one consisting of publication abstracts and the other clinical observations.
RESULTS: The best run, using in-context learning, achieved 0.58 document-level F1 score on publication abstracts and 0.75 document-level F1 score on clinical observations, as well as a mention-level F1 score of 0.7, which surpasses the current best in class tool. Without in-context learning, however, performance is significantly below the existing approaches.
CONCLUSION: Our experiments show that gpt-4.0 surpasses the state of the art performance if the task is constrained to a subset of the target ontology where there is prior knowledge of the terms that are expected to be matched. While the results are promising, the non-deterministic nature of the outcomes, the high cost and the lack of concordance between different runs using the same prompt and input make the use of these LLMs challenging for this particular task.
Comments
© Crown 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate- rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/ publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.