Daily Arxiv

This is a page that curates AI-related papers published worldwide.
All content here is summarized using Google Gemini and operated on a non-profit basis.
Copyright for each paper belongs to the authors and their institutions; please make sure to credit the source when sharing.

Hallucination vs interpretation: rethinking accuracy and precision in AI-assisted data extraction for knowledge synthesis

Created by
  • Haebom

Author

Xi Long, Christy Boscardin, Lauren A. Maggio, Joseph A. Costello, Ralph Gonzales, Rasmyah Hammoudeh, Ki Lai, Yoon Soo Park, Brian C. Gin

Outline

This study developed a data extraction platform using a large-scale language model (LLM) to improve the efficiency of the essential knowledge synthesis (literature review) process in health professions education (HPE). The study compared and analyzed the extraction results of AI and human extraction from 187 existing scoping review articles and 17 extraction questions. The agreement between AI and human extraction varied by question type, with high agreement for specific and explicitly stated questions (e.g., title, objectives) and low agreement for questions requiring subjective interpretation or not explicitly stated in the text (e.g., Kirkpatrick's results, research background). AI errors were significantly lower than human errors, and most of the disagreement between AI and human extraction was due to differences in interpretation. This suggests that iterating the AI extraction process can identify complexities or ambiguities in interpretation, allowing for improvements prior to human review.

Takeaways, Limitations

Takeaways:
We demonstrate that an LLM-based AI-powered data extraction platform can improve the efficiency of health professions education literature reviews.
AI errors are far less likely to occur than human errors, and most discrepancies between AI and humans stem from differences in interpretation.
Iterating the AI extraction process can identify ambiguities in interpretation and improve the process before human review.
AI can be a transparent and trustworthy partner in the knowledge synthesis process.
Limitations:
This study is limited to specific scoping review papers and questions, which limits its generalizability.
AI performance varies significantly depending on the type of question, especially those requiring subjective interpretation.
AI cannot completely replace deep human insight. Maintaining human expertise is crucial.
👍