Measuring the practice of shared-decision making (OPTION12): An Investigation into Open-sourced Smaller LLMs (OS-sLLMs) for Better Privacy and Sustainability
LLM4SDM is the first study of open-source smaller language models (OS-sLLMs) for automated assessment of shared decision making (SDM) using the Observer OPTION12 framework and introduces a Judge-LLM consensus framework designed to support disagreement resolution among multiple models.
Abstract
We present LLM4SDM, the first study of open-source smaller language models (OS-sLLMs) for automated assessment of shared decision making (SDM) using the Observer OPTION12 framework. Unlike previous work that relies on large commercial models and the shorter OPTION5 instrument, our study focuses on privacy-preserving locally deployable models and Dutch melanoma consultation transcripts. Using expert-annotated clinical consultations, we evaluate three general-domain and two medical-domain OS-sLLMs during a development-phase pilot study. Results show that general-domain models outperform medical-domain models, which exhibit substantial hallucination and instruction-following failures. Gemma3:12b achieves the strongest agreement with human annotations (Pearson r=0.51, Spearman \r{ho}=0.59). Item-level and qualitative analyses reveal systematic challenges related to temporal discourse reasoning, conversational role attribution, and evidence grounding. We further introduce a Judge-LLM consensus framework designed to support disagreement resolution among multiple models. Our findings suggest that while current OS-sLLMs cannot replace human annotators, they offer a promising foundation for privacy-preserving human-in-the-loop SDM assessment.
The demand for scalable and empathetic mental health support is driving increased interest in the use of large language models (LLMs) as advisory tools. Very few studies have been published that show how LLMs perform psychologically and demonstrate cross-model variation. We introduce DASS21-EvaLLM, a counsellor-in-the-...
Shahrul Hazman Shamshudeen, N. Sharef, M. S. Yusoff· Journal of Information &...· 0 citations
D-study simulations support the use of hybrid human-LLM workflows to reach coding consensus for deductive reasoning tasks through mode responses, an alternative consensus-generating mechanism to traditional adjudication discussions.
Emily Rush, M. Karim, George S. Yacu et al.· Medical Teacher· 0 citations
Bottom-up incremental scoring showed the closest alignment with human assessment in clinical AI evaluation, underscoring the need for standardised prompt architectures in clinical AI evaluation.
Reasoning LLMs can classify stance accurately, but their readiness for transparent public health applications depends on whether a CoT is available at all and whether it is coherent with the label it accompanies (label–rationale coherence).
Andreas Praschk, Valentin Fischill-Neudeck, T. Caspari et al.· Journal of medical systems· 0 citations
A benchmark evaluation framework for measuring the faithfulness of LLM-generated clinical trial summaries across three stakeholder audiences is introduced and a knowledge-graph-augmented retrieval system was developed and evaluated, producing statistically significant improvements in NLI-based faithfulness scores.
CueSupport-MH is introduced, a 6,400-instance benchmark constructed from public Reddit conversations and annotated for four complementary dimensions: risk label, risk evidence span, protective cue, and response-safety label, and a lightweight interpretable framework for joint risk detection and response-safety classifi...
F. Alotaibi, Msvpj Sathvik, Mohammed Younus et al.· IEEE Access· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.