Follow this section to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW? Smart Alerts: Get notified about major news as it happens. Follow this tag to personalize your feed and get instant alerts. Follow Go to your personalized feed WHY FOLLOW?

This is health care's Uber moment. Every knowledge-based profession may one day reach the point when AI outperforms the human experts. In medicine, that day appeared to come in April. A group of primarily Harvard and Stanford researchers announced the results of a study that pitted ChatGPT against hundreds of physicians in a diagnostic obstacle course involving written medical mysteries and information from real-world patients. The bot had won, and the humans weren't entirely happy about it.

Sample efficiencyof ESRL is independent of the chosen risk aversion threshold and quality of the behavior policy.

Algorithmic indistinguishability yields a natural test for assessing whether experts incorporate this kind of "side

High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained

By pre-training the model on domain-specific data, PubMED BERT is expected to have a better understanding of biomedical concepts, terminology, and language patterns compared to general domain models like BERT -base and BERT -large [ 95 ]. The main advantage of using PubMED BERT for biomedical text mining tasks is its domain-specific knowledge, which can lead to improved performance and more accurate results when fine-tuned on various downstream tasks, such as named entity recognition, relation extraction, document classification, and question answering. Since PubMED BERT is pre-trained on a large corpus of biomedical text, it is better suited to capturing the unique language patterns, complex terminology, and the relationships between entities in the biomedical domain.

The "Patient Instruction" (PI), which contains critical instructional information provided bothtocarers andtothepatient atthetimeofdischarge,isessential for the patient to manage their condition outside hospital.

Phase-specific wordtopics arediscoveredthathelpexplain theconceptual patterns conditioned on the same phase.

High-stakes prediction tasks (e.g., patient diagnosis) are often handled by trained human experts. A common source of concern about automation in these settings is that experts may exercise intuition that is difficult to model and/or have access to information (e.g., conversations with a patient) that is simply unavailable to a would-be algorithm. This raises a natural question whether human experts add value which could not be captured by an algorithmic predictor.We develop a statistical framework under which we can pose this question as a natural hypothesis test. Indeed, as our framework highlights, detecting human expertise is more subtle than simply comparing the accuracy of expert predictions to those made by a particular learning algorithm. Instead, we propose a simple procedure which tests whether expert predictions are statistically independent from the outcomes of interest after conditioning on the available inputs ('features'). A rejection of our test thus suggests that human experts may add value to any algorithm trained on the available data, and has direct implications for whether human-AI'complementarity' is achievable in a given prediction task.We highlight the utility of our procedure using admissions data collected from the emergency department of a large academic hospital system, where we show that physicians' admit/discharge decisions for patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding (AGIB) appear to be incorporating information that is not available to a standard algorithmic screening tool. This is despite the fact that the screening tool is arguably more accurate than physicians' discretionary decisions, highlighting that - even absent normative concerns about accountability or interpretability - accuracy is insufficient to justify algorithmic automation.