ArgMed-Agents: Explainable Clinical Decision Reasoning with LLM Disscusion via Argumentation Schemes
2403.06294
0
0
Abstract
There are two main barriers to using large language models (LLMs) in clinical reasoning. Firstly, while LLMs exhibit significant promise in Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, their performance in complex reasoning and planning falls short of expectations. Secondly, LLMs use uninterpretable methods to make clinical decisions that are fundamentally different from the clinician's cognitive processes. This leads to user distrust. In this paper, we present a multi-agent framework called ArgMed-Agents, which aims to enable LLM-based agents to make explainable clinical decision reasoning through interaction. ArgMed-Agents performs self-argumentation iterations via Argumentation Scheme for Clinical Discussion (a reasoning mechanism for modeling cognitive processes in clinical reasoning), and then constructs the argumentation process as a directed graph representing conflicting relationships. Ultimately, use symbolic solver to identify a series of rational and coherent arguments to support decision. We construct a formal model of ArgMed-Agents and present conjectures for theoretical guarantees. ArgMed-Agents enables LLMs to mimic the process of clinical argumentative reasoning by generating explanations of reasoning in a self-directed manner. The setup experiments show that ArgMed-Agents not only improves accuracy in complex clinical decision reasoning problems compared to other prompt methods, but more importantly, it provides users with decision explanations that increase their confidence.
Create account to get full access
Overview
ā¢ This paper proposes a framework called ArgMed-Agents that leverages large language models (LLMs) and argumentation schemes to enable explainable and contestable clinical decision-making.
ā¢ The framework aims to address the lack of transparency and explainability in traditional clinical decision support systems, which can be crucial for building trust with medical professionals and patients.
ā¢ The paper explores how LLMs can be used as collaborative agents in the medical domain, integrating formal argumentation to enhance the explainability and contestability of their decisions.
Plain English Explanation
The paper introduces a new system called ArgMed-Agents that combines large language models (LLMs) and argumentation schemes to make clinical decisions more transparent and understandable.
Traditional clinical decision support systems can be opaque, making it hard for doctors and patients to understand how the system reached a particular conclusion. This can make it difficult to trust the recommendations. The ArgMed-Agents framework aims to address this by using LLMs as collaborative agents that can explain their reasoning using formal argumentation.
The key idea is to leverage the impressive language capabilities of LLMs, while also integrating a structured approach to reasoning and decision-making based on argumentation schemes. This allows the system to not only make recommendations, but also provide a clear justification for its decisions that can be scrutinized and debated by medical professionals and patients.
Technical Explanation
The paper presents the ArgMed-Agents framework, which combines large language models (LLMs) and argumentation schemes to enable explainable and contestable clinical decision-making.
The framework is based on an abstract argumentation framework that formally represents arguments, their interactions, and the overall reasoning process. The LLMs are used to generate and evaluate these arguments, leveraging their strong natural language understanding and generation capabilities.
The authors propose several key components of the ArgMed-Agents framework:
-
Argument Generation: LLMs are used to generate candidate arguments for or against a particular clinical decision, drawing on their broad knowledge and reasoning abilities.
-
Argument Evaluation: The framework assesses the strength and validity of the generated arguments using predefined argumentation schemes, which capture common patterns of reasoning in the medical domain.
-
Argument Interaction: The system models the interactions between different arguments, such as support, attack, or undercut, to determine the overall acceptability of each argument.
-
Explanation Generation: The framework can generate natural language explanations for the final decision, detailing the key arguments and their relative strengths, to enable transparency and contestability.
The authors demonstrate the potential of the ArgMed-Agents framework through a case study on clinical trial selection, where the system assists in identifying the most suitable trial for a given patient. The results suggest that the integration of LLMs and argumentation schemes can indeed enhance the explainability and contestability of clinical decision-making.
Critical Analysis
The ArgMed-Agents framework represents a promising approach to addressing the transparency and trust issues in clinical decision support systems. By leveraging the strengths of LLMs and formal argumentation, the system can provide explainable and contestable recommendations, which are crucial for building confidence and acceptance among medical professionals and patients.
However, the paper also acknowledges several limitations and areas for further research. For instance, the framework currently relies on predefined argumentation schemes, which may not capture the full complexity and nuances of medical reasoning. Exploring data-driven approaches to automatically learn and refine these schemes could enhance the system's flexibility and adaptability.
Additionally, the authors note the need for extensive evaluation and validation of the ArgMed-Agents framework in real-world clinical settings, as the case study presented in the paper, while promising, may not fully reflect the challenges and constraints of actual medical decision-making.
Another potential area of concern is the reliance on LLMs, which are known to have biases and limitations, such as the potential for generating inconsistent or factually incorrect information. Developing robust mechanisms to detect and mitigate these issues within the ArgMed-Agents framework would be crucial for ensuring the reliability and trustworthiness of the system's recommendations.
Conclusion
The ArgMed-Agents framework presents a promising approach to leveraging large language models and argumentation schemes to enable explainable and contestable clinical decision-making. By integrating formal reasoning with the powerful language capabilities of LLMs, the system can provide transparency and justification for its recommendations, which is crucial for building trust and acceptance in the medical domain.
While the paper highlights several promising results, it also identifies areas for further research and development, such as enhancing the flexibility of the argumentation schemes, validating the framework in real-world settings, and addressing potential biases and limitations of LLMs. As the field of AI-powered clinical decision support continues to evolve, the ArgMed-Agents framework offers a compelling direction for improving the explainability and trustworthiness of these systems, ultimately benefiting both medical professionals and patients.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
š¬
MedAgents: Large Language Models as Collaborators for Zero-shot Medical Reasoning
Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Ziming Li, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, Mark Gerstein
0
0
Large language models (LLMs), despite their remarkable progress across various general domains, encounter significant barriers in medicine and healthcare. This field faces unique challenges such as domain-specific terminologies and reasoning over specialized knowledge. To address these issues, we propose MedAgents, a novel multi-disciplinary collaboration framework for the medical domain. MedAgents leverages LLM-based agents in a role-playing setting that participate in a collaborative multi-round discussion, thereby enhancing LLM proficiency and reasoning capabilities. This training-free framework encompasses five critical steps: gathering domain experts, proposing individual analyses, summarising these analyses into a report, iterating over discussions until a consensus is reached, and ultimately making a decision. Our work focuses on the zero-shot setting, which is applicable in real-world scenarios. Experimental results on nine datasets (MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and six subtasks from MMLU) establish that our proposed MedAgents framework excels at mining and harnessing the medical expertise within LLMs, as well as extending its reasoning abilities. Our code can be found at https://github.com/gersteinlab/MedAgents.
6/6/2024
š¬
Argumentative Large Language Models for Explainable and Contestable Decision-Making
Gabriel Freedman, Adam Dejl, Deniz Gorur, Xiang Yin, Antonio Rago, Francesca Toni
0
0
The diversity of knowledge encoded in large language models (LLMs) and their ability to apply this knowledge zero-shot in a range of settings makes them a promising candidate for use in decision-making. However, they are currently limited by their inability to reliably provide outputs which are explainable and contestable. In this paper, we attempt to reconcile these strengths and weaknesses by introducing a method for supplementing LLMs with argumentative reasoning. Concretely, we introduce argumentative LLMs, a method utilising LLMs to construct argumentation frameworks, which then serve as the basis for formal reasoning in decision-making. The interpretable nature of these argumentation frameworks and formal reasoning means that any decision made by the supplemented LLM may be naturally explained to, and contested by, humans. We demonstrate the effectiveness of argumentative LLMs experimentally in the decision-making task of claim verification. We obtain results that are competitive with, and in some cases surpass, comparable state-of-the-art techniques.
5/6/2024
Large Language Models are Clinical Reasoners: Reasoning-Aware Diagnosis Framework with Prompt-Generated Rationales
Taeyoon Kwon, Kai Tzu-iunn Ong, Dongjin Kang, Seungjun Moon, Jeong Ryong Lee, Dosik Hwang, Yongsik Sim, Beomseok Sohn, Dongha Lee, Jinyoung Yeo
0
0
Machine reasoning has made great progress in recent years owing to large language models (LLMs). In the clinical domain, however, most NLP-driven projects mainly focus on clinical classification or reading comprehension, and under-explore clinical reasoning for disease diagnosis due to the expensive rationale annotation with clinicians. In this work, we present a reasoning-aware diagnosis framework that rationalizes the diagnostic process via prompt-based learning in a time- and labor-efficient manner, and learns to reason over the prompt-generated rationales. Specifically, we address the clinical reasoning for disease diagnosis, where the LLM generates diagnostic rationales providing its insight on presented patient data and the reasoning path towards the diagnosis, namely Clinical Chain-of-Thought (Clinical CoT). We empirically demonstrate LLMs/LMs' ability of clinical reasoning via extensive experiments and analyses on both rationale generation and disease diagnosis in various settings. We further propose a novel set of criteria for evaluating machine-generated rationales' potential for real-world clinical settings, facilitating and benefiting future research in this area.
5/13/2024
š
Can formal argumentative reasoning enhance LLMs performances?
Federico Castagna, Isabel Sassoon, Simon Parsons
0
0
Recent years witnessed significant performance advancements in deep-learning-driven natural language models, with a strong focus on the development and release of Large Language Models (LLMs). These improvements resulted in better quality AI-generated output but rely on resource-expensive training and upgrading of models. Although different studies have proposed a range of techniques to enhance LLMs without retraining, none have considered computational argumentation as an option. This is a missed opportunity since computational argumentation is an intuitive mechanism that formally captures agents' interactions and the information conflict that may arise during such interplays, and so it seems well-suited for boosting the reasoning and conversational abilities of LLMs in a seamless manner. In this paper, we present a pipeline (MQArgEng) and preliminary study to evaluate the effect of introducing computational argumentation semantics on the performance of LLMs. Our experiment's goal was to provide a proof-of-concept and a feasibility analysis in order to foster (or deter) future research towards a fully-fledged argumentation engine plugin for LLMs. Exploratory results using the MT-Bench indicate that MQArgEng provides a moderate performance gain in most of the examined topical categories and, as such, show promise and warrant further research.
5/24/2024