Large language models, particularly GPT-3, are able to produce high quality summaries ofgeneral domain news articles in few- and zero-shot settings. However, it is unclear if such models are similarly capable in more specialized domains such as biomedicine. In this paper we enlist domain experts (individuals with medical training) to evaluate summaries of biomedical articles generated by GPT-3, given no supervision. We consider bothsingle- and multi-document settings. In the former, GPT-3 is tasked with generating regular and plain-language summaries of articles describing randomized controlled trials; in thelatter, we assess the degree to which GPT-3 is able to synthesize evidence reported acrossa collection of articles. We design an annotation scheme for evaluating model outputs, withan emphasis on assessing the factual accuracy of generated summaries. We find that whileGPT-3 is able to summarize and simplify single biomedical articles faithfully, it strugglesto provide accurate aggregations of findings over multiple documents. We release all data,code, and annotations used in this work.

Clinical prediction models often use structured variables and provide outcomes that are not readily interpretable by clinicians. Further, free-text medical notes may contain information not immediately available in structured variables. We propose a hierarchical CNN-transformer model with explicit attention as an interpretable, multi-task clinical language model, which achieves an AUROC of 0.75 and 0.78 on sepsis and mortality prediction, respectively. We also explore the relationships between learned features from structured and unstructured variables using projection-weighted canonical correlation analysis. Finally, we outline a protocol to evaluate model usability in a clinical decision support context. From domain-expert evaluations, our model generates informative rationales that have promising real-life applications.