Back

LLM Instruction-Example Adaptive Prompting (LEAP) Framework for Clinical Relation Extraction

Zhou, H.; Li, M.; Xiao, Y.; Yang, H.; Zhang, R.

2023-12-17 health informatics
10.1101/2023.12.15.23300059 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveTo investigate the demonstration in Large Language Models (LLMs) for clinical relation extraction. We focus on examining two types of adaptive demonstration: instruction adaptive prompting, and example adaptive prompting to understand their impacts and effectiveness. Materials and MethodsThe study unfolds in two stages. Initially, we explored a range of demonstration components vital to LLMs clinical data extraction, such as task descriptions and examples, and tested their combinations. Subsequently, we introduced the Instruction-Example Adaptive Prompting (LEAP) Framework, a system that integrates two types of adaptive prompts: one preceding instruction and another before examples. This framework is designed to systematically explore both adaptive task description and adaptive examples within the demonstration. We evaluated LEAP frameworks performance on the DDI and BC5CDR chemical interaction datasets, applying it across LLMs such as Llama2-7b, Llama2-13b, and MedLLaMA_13B. ResultsThe study revealed that Instruction + Options + Examples and its expanded form substantially raised F1-scores over the standard Instruction + Options mode. LEAP framework excelled, especially with example adaptive prompting that outdid traditional instruction tuning across models. Notably, the MedLLAMA-13b model scored an impressive 95.13 F1 on the BC5CDR dataset with this method. Significant improvements were also seen in the DDI 2013 dataset, confirming the methods robustness in sophisticated data extraction. ConclusionThe LEAP framework presents a promising avenue for refining LLM training strategies, steering away from extensive finetuning towards more contextually rich and dynamic prompting methodologies.

Matching journals

The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.