Showing 1–7 of 7 results for author: Sun, M W

Can Large Language Models Match the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews?

Authors: Christopher Polzak, Alejandro Lozano, Min Woo Sun, James Burgess, Yuhui Zhang, Kevin Wu, Serena Yeung-Levy

Abstract: Systematic reviews (SR), in which experts summarize and analyze evidence across individual studies to provide insights on a specialized topic, are a cornerstone for evidence-based clinical decision-making, research, and policy. Given the exponential growth of scientific articles, there is growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to automate SR generation. However, the ability of LLMs… ▽ More Systematic reviews (SR), in which experts summarize and analyze evidence across individual studies to provide insights on a specialized topic, are a cornerstone for evidence-based clinical decision-making, research, and policy. Given the exponential growth of scientific articles, there is growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) to automate SR generation. However, the ability of LLMs to critically assess evidence and reason across multiple documents to provide recommendations at the same proficiency as domain experts remains poorly characterized. We therefore ask: Can LLMs match the conclusions of systematic reviews written by clinical experts when given access to the same studies? To explore this question, we present MedEvidence, a benchmark pairing findings from 100 SRs with the studies they are based on. We benchmark 24 LLMs on MedEvidence, including reasoning, non-reasoning, medical specialist, and models across varying sizes (from 7B-700B). Through our systematic evaluation, we find that reasoning does not necessarily improve performance, larger models do not consistently yield greater gains, and knowledge-based fine-tuning degrades accuracy on MedEvidence. Instead, most models exhibit similar behavior: performance tends to degrade as token length increases, their responses show overconfidence, and, contrary to human experts, all models show a lack of scientific skepticism toward low-quality findings. These results suggest that more work is still required before LLMs can reliably match the observations from expert-conducted SRs, even though these systems are already deployed and being used by clinicians. We release our codebase and benchmark to the broader research community to further investigate LLM-based SR systems. △ Less

Submitted 28 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

MedCaseReasoning: Evaluating and learning diagnostic reasoning from clinical case reports

Authors: Kevin Wu, Eric Wu, Rahul Thapa, Kevin Wei, Angela Zhang, Arvind Suresh, Jacqueline J. Tao, Min Woo Sun, Alejandro Lozano, James Zou

Abstract: Doctors and patients alike increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) to diagnose clinical cases. However, unlike domains such as math or coding, where correctness can be objectively defined by the final answer, medical diagnosis requires both the outcome and the reasoning process to be accurate. Currently, widely used medical benchmarks like MedQA and MMLU assess only accuracy in the final ans… ▽ More Doctors and patients alike increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) to diagnose clinical cases. However, unlike domains such as math or coding, where correctness can be objectively defined by the final answer, medical diagnosis requires both the outcome and the reasoning process to be accurate. Currently, widely used medical benchmarks like MedQA and MMLU assess only accuracy in the final answer, overlooking the quality and faithfulness of the clinical reasoning process. To address this limitation, we introduce MedCaseReasoning, the first open-access dataset for evaluating LLMs on their ability to align with clinician-authored diagnostic reasoning. The dataset includes 14,489 diagnostic question-and-answer cases, each paired with detailed reasoning statements derived from open-access medical case reports. We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs on MedCaseReasoning and find significant shortcomings in their diagnoses and reasoning: for instance, the top-performing open-source model, DeepSeek-R1, achieves only 48% 10-shot diagnostic accuracy and mentions only 64% of the clinician reasoning statements (recall). However, we demonstrate that fine-tuning LLMs on the reasoning traces derived from MedCaseReasoning significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical reasoning recall by an average relative gain of 29% and 41%, respectively. The open-source dataset, code, and models are available at https://github.com/kevinwu23/Stanford-MedCaseReasoning. △ Less

Submitted 20 May, 2025; v1 submitted 16 May, 2025; originally announced May 2025.

A Large-Scale Vision-Language Dataset Derived from Open Scientific Literature to Advance Biomedical Generalist AI

Authors: Alejandro Lozano, Min Woo Sun, James Burgess, Jeffrey J. Nirschl, Christopher Polzak, Yuhui Zhang, Liangyu Chen, Jeffrey Gu, Ivan Lopez, Josiah Aklilu, Anita Rau, Austin Wolfgang Katzer, Collin Chiu, Orr Zohar, Xiaohan Wang, Alfred Seunghoon Song, Chiang Chia-Chun, Robert Tibshirani, Serena Yeung-Levy

Abstract: Despite the excitement behind biomedical artificial intelligence (AI), access to high-quality, diverse, and large-scale data - the foundation for modern AI systems - is still a bottleneck to unlocking its full potential. To address this gap, we introduce Biomedica, an open-source dataset derived from the PubMed Central Open Access subset, containing over 6 million scientific articles and 24 millio… ▽ More Despite the excitement behind biomedical artificial intelligence (AI), access to high-quality, diverse, and large-scale data - the foundation for modern AI systems - is still a bottleneck to unlocking its full potential. To address this gap, we introduce Biomedica, an open-source dataset derived from the PubMed Central Open Access subset, containing over 6 million scientific articles and 24 million image-text pairs, along with 27 metadata fields (including expert human annotations). To overcome the challenges of accessing our large-scale dataset, we provide scalable streaming and search APIs through a web server, facilitating seamless integration with AI systems. We demonstrate the utility of the Biomedica dataset by building embedding models, chat-style models, and retrieval-augmented chat agents. Notably, all our AI models surpass previous open systems in their respective categories, underscoring the critical role of diverse, high-quality, and large-scale biomedical data. △ Less

Submitted 1 April, 2025; v1 submitted 26 March, 2025; originally announced March 2025.

BIOMEDICA: An Open Biomedical Image-Caption Archive, Dataset, and Vision-Language Models Derived from Scientific Literature

Authors: Alejandro Lozano, Min Woo Sun, James Burgess, Liangyu Chen, Jeffrey J Nirschl, Jeffrey Gu, Ivan Lopez, Josiah Aklilu, Austin Wolfgang Katzer, Collin Chiu, Anita Rau, Xiaohan Wang, Yuhui Zhang, Alfred Seunghoon Song, Robert Tibshirani, Serena Yeung-Levy

Abstract: The development of vision-language models (VLMs) is driven by large-scale and diverse multimodal datasets. However, progress toward generalist biomedical VLMs is limited by the lack of annotated, publicly accessible datasets across biology and medicine. Existing efforts are restricted to narrow domains, missing the full diversity of biomedical knowledge encoded in scientific literature. To address… ▽ More The development of vision-language models (VLMs) is driven by large-scale and diverse multimodal datasets. However, progress toward generalist biomedical VLMs is limited by the lack of annotated, publicly accessible datasets across biology and medicine. Existing efforts are restricted to narrow domains, missing the full diversity of biomedical knowledge encoded in scientific literature. To address this gap, we introduce BIOMEDICA, a scalable, open-source framework to extract, annotate, and serialize the entirety of the PubMed Central Open Access subset into an easy-to-use, publicly accessible dataset. Our framework produces a comprehensive archive with over 24 million unique image-text pairs from over 6 million articles. Metadata and expert-guided annotations are also provided. We demonstrate the utility and accessibility of our resource by releasing BMCA-CLIP, a suite of CLIP-style models continuously pre-trained on the BIOMEDICA dataset via streaming, eliminating the need to download 27 TB of data locally. On average, our models achieve state-of-the-art performance across 40 tasks - spanning pathology, radiology, ophthalmology, dermatology, surgery, molecular biology, parasitology, and cell biology - excelling in zero-shot classification with a 6.56% average improvement (as high as 29.8% and 17.5% in dermatology and ophthalmology, respectively), and stronger image-text retrieval, all while using 10x less compute. To foster reproducibility and collaboration, we release our codebase and dataset for the broader research community. △ Less

Submitted 1 April, 2025; v1 submitted 13 January, 2025; originally announced January 2025.

CoCA: Cooperative Component Analysis

Authors: Daisy Yi Ding, Alden Green, Min Woo Sun, Robert Tibshirani

Abstract: We propose Cooperative Component Analysis (CoCA), a new method for unsupervised multi-view analysis: it identifies the component that simultaneously captures significant within-view variance and exhibits strong cross-view correlation. The challenge of integrating multi-view data is particularly important in biology and medicine, where various types of "-omic" data, ranging from genomics to proteom… ▽ More We propose Cooperative Component Analysis (CoCA), a new method for unsupervised multi-view analysis: it identifies the component that simultaneously captures significant within-view variance and exhibits strong cross-view correlation. The challenge of integrating multi-view data is particularly important in biology and medicine, where various types of "-omic" data, ranging from genomics to proteomics, are measured on the same set of samples. The goal is to uncover important, shared signals that represent underlying biological mechanisms. CoCA combines an approximation error loss to preserve information within data views and an "agreement penalty" to encourage alignment across data views. By balancing the trade-off between these two key components in the objective, CoCA has the property of interpolating between the commonly-used principal component analysis (PCA) and canonical correlation analysis (CCA) as special cases at the two ends of the solution path. CoCA chooses the degree of agreement in a data-adaptive manner, using a validation set or cross-validation to estimate test error. Furthermore, we propose a sparse variant of CoCA that incorporates the Lasso penalty to yield feature sparsity, facilitating the identification of key features driving the observed patterns. We demonstrate the effectiveness of CoCA on simulated data and two real multiomics studies of COVID-19 and ductal carcinoma in situ of breast. In both real data applications, CoCA successfully integrates multiomics data, extracting components that are not only consistently present across different data views but also more informative and predictive of disease progression. CoCA offers a powerful framework for discovering important shared signals in multi-view data, with the potential to uncover novel insights in an increasingly multi-view data world. △ Less

Submitted 23 July, 2024; originally announced July 2024.

Confidence intervals for the Cox model test error from cross-validation

Authors: Min Woo Sun, Robert Tibshirani

Abstract: Cross-validation (CV) is one of the most widely used techniques in statistical learning for estimating the test error of a model, but its behavior is not yet fully understood. It has been shown that standard confidence intervals for test error using estimates from CV may have coverage below nominal levels. This phenomenon occurs because each sample is used in both the training and testing procedur… ▽ More Cross-validation (CV) is one of the most widely used techniques in statistical learning for estimating the test error of a model, but its behavior is not yet fully understood. It has been shown that standard confidence intervals for test error using estimates from CV may have coverage below nominal levels. This phenomenon occurs because each sample is used in both the training and testing procedures during CV and as a result, the CV estimates of the errors become correlated. Without accounting for this correlation, the estimate of the variance is smaller than it should be. One way to mitigate this issue is by estimating the mean squared error of the prediction error instead using nested CV. This approach has been shown to achieve superior coverage compared to intervals derived from standard CV. In this work, we generalize the nested CV idea to the Cox proportional hazards model and explore various choices of test error for this setting. △ Less

Submitted 6 October, 2023; v1 submitted 26 January, 2022; originally announced January 2022.

Journal ref: Statistics in Medicine. 2023; 1-10

Improved Digital Therapy for Developmental Pediatrics Using Domain-Specific Artificial Intelligence: Machine Learning Study

Authors: Peter Washington, Haik Kalantarian, John Kent, Arman Husic, Aaron Kline, Emilie Leblanc, Cathy Hou, Onur Cezmi Mutlu, Kaitlyn Dunlap, Yordan Penev, Maya Varma, Nate Tyler Stockham, Brianna Chrisman, Kelley Paskov, Min Woo Sun, Jae-Yoon Jung, Catalin Voss, Nick Haber, Dennis Paul Wall

Abstract: Background: Automated emotion classification could aid those who struggle to recognize emotions, including children with developmental behavioral conditions such as autism. However, most computer vision emotion recognition models are trained on adult emotion and therefore underperform when applied to child faces. Objective: We designed a strategy to gamify the collection and labeling of child emot… ▽ More Background: Automated emotion classification could aid those who struggle to recognize emotions, including children with developmental behavioral conditions such as autism. However, most computer vision emotion recognition models are trained on adult emotion and therefore underperform when applied to child faces. Objective: We designed a strategy to gamify the collection and labeling of child emotion-enriched images to boost the performance of automatic child emotion recognition models to a level closer to what will be needed for digital health care approaches. Methods: We leveraged our prototype therapeutic smartphone game, GuessWhat, which was designed in large part for children with developmental and behavioral conditions, to gamify the secure collection of video data of children expressing a variety of emotions prompted by the game. Independently, we created a secure web interface to gamify the human labeling effort, called HollywoodSquares, tailored for use by any qualified labeler. We gathered and labeled 2155 videos, 39,968 emotion frames, and 106,001 labels on all images. With this drastically expanded pediatric emotion-centric database (>30 times larger than existing public pediatric emotion data sets), we trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) computer vision classifier of happy, sad, surprised, fearful, angry, disgust, and neutral expressions evoked by children. Results: The classifier achieved a 66.9% balanced accuracy and 67.4% F1-score on the entirety of the Child Affective Facial Expression (CAFE) as well as a 79.1% balanced accuracy and 78% F1-score on CAFE Subset A, a subset containing at least 60% human agreement on emotions labels. This performance is at least 10% higher than all previously developed classifiers evaluated against CAFE, the best of which reached a 56% balanced accuracy even when combining "anger" and "disgust" into a single class. △ Less

Submitted 3 June, 2024; v1 submitted 15 December, 2020; originally announced December 2020.

Journal ref: JMIR pediatrics and parenting 5.2 (2022): e26760