tmblweeds OP t1_j0hgp9v wrote on December 16, 2022 at 5:50 PM

Reply to comment by Top-Perspective2560 in [P] Medical question-answering without hallucinating by tmblweeds

Definitely not overly critical—the whole reason I posted was to get critiques! I think you're right that I can go further with explainability, and I also think that there are ways to use NER, etc., to give more interesting answers (e.g., a table of treatments sorted by effect size or adverse events). I'll keep working in this direction.

Top-Perspective2560 t1_j0ho0hv wrote on December 16, 2022 at 6:38 PM

Sounds good! The table of treatments sounds like a good starting point - but further down the road it's definitely an issue of making sure that it actually corresponds to the model's "answer" somehow, because the advantage of providing it is to validate the output. Quite a lot of these issues around explainability are very deep-rooted in the models themselves - I'm sure you're familiar with the general state of play on that. However, there are definitely ways to take steps in the right direction.

If you'd like any input at any point feel free to fire over a DM!