Abstract
The capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced since their popularization a few years ago. The healthcare sector operates on, and generates a large volume of data annually and thus, there is a growing focus on the applications of LLMs within this sector. There are a few medicine-oriented evaluation datasets and benchmarks for assessing the performance of various LLMs in clinical scenarios; however, there is a paucity of information on the real-world usefulness of LLMs in context-specific scenarios in resourceconstrained settings. In this study, 16 iterations of a decision support tool for medical emergencies using 4 distinct generalized LLMs were constructed, alongside a combination of 4 Prompt Engineering techniques: In-Context Learning with 5-shot prompting (5SP), chain-of-thought prompting (CoT), self-questioning prompting (SQP), and a stacking of self-questioning prompting and chain-of-thought (SQCT). In total 428 model responses were quantitatively and qualitatively evaluated by 22 clinicians familiar with the medical scenarios and background contexts. Our study highlights the benefits of In-Context Learning with few-shot prompting, and the utility of the relatively novel self-questioning prompting technique. We also demonstrate the benefits of combining various prompting techniques to elicit the best performance of LLMs in providing contextually applicable health information. We also highlight the need for continuous human expert verification in the development and deployment of LLM-based health applications, especially in use cases where context is paramount.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study did not receive any funding
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
s.dagadu{at}snoocode.com
projectgenie314{at}gmail.com
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors