The article reports on a study comparing Jev, a decision language model that provides structured judgments, with large language model (LLM) judges for evaluating clinical AI outputs. Across multiple use cases—including pediatric answer quality, binary HealthBench criteria, MedHELM open‑ended tasks, and HealthBench Professional—Jev matched or exceeded the performance of several frontier and open‑weight LLM judges. Moreover, Jev was significantly cheaper and faster, costing 73–294 times less and taking 7–57 times less time than frontier judges, suggesting it could enable efficient, scalable clinical AI evaluation.
arXiv:2607. 02175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%.
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:2606. 28960v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice.
The paper introduces AI Consilium, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on providing clinically grounded, coherent, actionable, and safe second opinions in multidisciplinary settings. Using 300 NEJM–MedQA cases, the study compares eight single-model pipelines that generate role-specific opinions and interactive-consilium reports under free-form and structured conditions. Results show that structured final reports generally score higher, especially in management, and that GPT‑5.6‑Sol outperforms other models across all evaluated components, demonstrating the benchmark’s ability to differentiate model capabilities and the impact of response structure.
arXiv:2608. 12138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have recently been reported to match or exceed specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks, but such comparisons draw on a narrow set of systems and on benchmarks developed largely in high-income settings.
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
arXiv:2609.27607v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its pre...
arXiv:2609.26550v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: LLM-as-a-judge scales evaluation, but reasoning judges are slow and costly. We study JEV-as-a-Judge: evaluation with JEV, a decision-only judge tha...
JudgeSense is a benchmark comprising 880 items from human‑labelled corpora, each presented under two differently worded instructions that ask the same question. The study evaluates 25 judges from six providers across four tasks, measuring how rewording affects agreement with the judge’s own verdicts. Results show that rewording reduces agreement on all tasks, with significant effects on two, and that stability varies across tasks and is not predicted by parameter count.
The paper introduces PrecepTron, a 32‑billion‑parameter language model fine‑tuned with low‑rank adaptation to evaluate clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) at a physician level. It also releases GRAND‑ROUNDS, a benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. Using PrecepTron, the authors replicate key findings from major medical AI studies and explore new questions about LLM diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating that fine‑tuned models can provide consistent, scalable physician‑level scoring.
The paper introduces Clinical System One (CS1), a 4‑billion‑parameter decision model that rapidly produces typed judgments from clinical records. Trained on 12.4 million Q&A pairs from 3.6 million patients, CS1 can answer multiple questions in a single forward pass, providing probability estimates for uncertain cases. In evaluations on 963,408 held‑out patients and 21 external datasets, CS1 outperformed larger open models and, when paired with a language‑model agent, efficiently identified trial‑eligible patients with far fewer tokens.
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.