arXiv:2607. 18086v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Background: LLM judges increasingly score whether clinical language models give overconfident answers under incomplete evidence, yet whether a measured "safety gain" reflects real behavior change or the judge's calibration is unresolved.
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
arXiv:2604. 07709v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A heavily safety-trained model will hand a physician the full, patient-followable benzodiazepine taper and refuse it to the patient who needs it, over identical clinical facts; the knowledge is present either way.
The paper introduces a two‑dimensional construct validity framework for evaluating large language models (LLMs) as judges, defining invariance (S) and sensitivity (R) to construct‑preserving and construct‑changing edits. Experiments across seven judges and four domains reveal high invariance (average S = 0.945) but low sensitivity (average R = 0.319), with sensitivity varying by edit type. Audits of public label sets show that surface‑only predictors can reproduce a substantial portion of labels, underscoring that high agreement does not guarantee construct validity.
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.
arXiv:2608.28592v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) achieve high scores on medical knowledge examinations, yet real-world oncology is not a knowledge test--it is a sequence o...
arXiv:2608. 02617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate whether clinician pairwise preferences provide a reliable signal of clinical safety in large language model (LLM) evaluation using expert feedback from MOOVE (Massive Open Online Validation and Evaluation), a clinician-led platform collecting blinded pairwise preferences alongside multi-criterion rubric ratings.
arXiv:2608. 14552v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly evaluated and used in medicine, but clinical usefulness depends on answer accuracy and whether confidence tracks evidence quality and uncertainty.
The study evaluates counterfactual bias in ten open‑source large language models (LLMs) for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. By creating paired clinical vignettes that differ only in demographic or socioeconomic variables, the authors measure shifts in acuity assignment, finding that counterfactual sensitivity varies widely across model families and sizes. A fine‑tuned Qwen2.5‑7B model exhibited the lowest sensitivity, while larger or medical‑domain models sometimes showed greater shifts, highlighting the need for fairness assessment before clinical deployment.
arXiv:2606. 30887v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models show promise for mental health support, yet therapeutic quality improves only when evaluation functions as an actionable control signal rather than a passive metric.
The paper introduces a joint fact‑verification score that evaluates both answers and the evidence submitted with them. On the FEVEROUS dataset, replacing the DCUF evidence with UnifEE evidence improves the strict score by about 9.6 percentage points, while answer accuracy rises only 1.96 points. The study also shows that increasing context length for large language models yields modest evidence‑gain improvements, and that detailed answer‑evidence analyses uncover patterns missed by aggregate metrics.
arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.
arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...