MedNLI-Pain benchmarks a minimally necessary requirement for large language model alignment.

OBJECTIVES

To simultaneously evaluate and compare LLM performance in clinical reasoning with a minimally necessary criteria for clinical alignment with patients.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

We adapt the MedNLI dataset to create MedNLI-Pain, a new benchmark task that evaluates if LLMs that make accurate clinical inferences about patients can also anticipate when those patients are in pain. MedNLI-Pain consists of patient vignettes originating from MedNLI that are then annotated with physician assessments of the described patient's pain.

RESULTS

All LLMs had higher agreement with physicians in MedNLI than in MedNLI-Pain and its counterfactually augmented subset. This trend persisted when accounting for the higher difficulty of MedNLI-Pain by normalizing to human performance. Large language model performance improved with more training data in MedNLI but not MedNLI-Pain.

DISCUSSION: Large language models may lack necessary capabilities (eg, recognizing patients' pain) for clinical alignment. Success at a clinical reasoning task, in this case medical natural language inference, may not entail commensurate ability to align with patients' interests.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research on alignment with patients is needed because the implications may direct future research into either closed-ended or agentic applications.