The paper "Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models" reports a small-scale study evaluating eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses. The authors introduce an evaluation framework and annotate 1,067 evidence points across six criteria, using nine metrics to assess performance. Results show that while LLMs have strong recall, they frequently fail to provide valid scientific articles, evidence, or reject unsupported hypotheses, revealing a critical limitation for their use in healthcare.
By Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, Md Aminul Islam, Elena Zheleva
MedRAGChecker is a claim-level verification framework designed for biomedical retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG). It decomposes generated answers into atomic claims and assesses each claim’s support by combining evidence‑grounded natural language inference with biomedical knowledge‑graph consistency signals. The aggregated claim decisions provide diagnostics that distinguish retrieval and generation failures, such as faithfulness, under‑evidence, contradiction, and safety‑critical errors, and the system is distilled into compact models for scalable evaluation.
By Yuelyu Ji, Min Gu Kwak, Hang Zhang, Xizhi Wu, Chenyu Li, Yanshan Wang
The paper introduces BioCheck Agent, an LLM-based system that generates structured biomedical fact‑checking reports using agentic search and a reinforcement‑learning framework called EG‑GRPO. Unlike prior methods that output only supported or refuted labels, BioCheck Agent synthesizes conclusions with retrieved evidence from PubMed, employing advanced Boolean search operators. Experiments show that, compared to the base Qwen3.5‑4B model, BioCheck Agent improves label prediction accuracy on SciFact by 9.95 %, raises evidence quality by 3.7 %, and reduces hallucinations by 19.63 %.
By Jiongxiao Wang, Dingli Ma, Chaoqun Ni
Although Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in clinical documentation, generating the rigorous, evidence-based reasoning required for unprecedented, atypical, and rare disease ca...
MedCaseAgent is an end‑to‑end agentic reasoning system that generates publication‑quality rare disease case reports from unstructured clinical notes. It combines patient‑level data mining with iterative, tool‑integrated reasoning, dynamically querying medical literature and knowledge bases to maintain clinical fidelity and assess case novelty. The framework is modular, supports multiple backbone LLMs, and is accompanied by a new multimodal case‑report corpus (MedCase‑150K) and evaluation suite (MedCase‑Bench).
By Hongkang Chu, Yifan Shen, Tianjiao Yu, Zhuoqing Zhong, Jianguo Cao, Meihuan Huang, Xu Cao
arXiv:2607. 24838v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: In medical multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) can supplement the domain knowledge of language models (LMs).
By Seongwon Seo, Seung Hwan Cho, Young-Min Kim
The paper investigates evidence generation for biomedical claim verification, evaluating various large language models and retrieval strategies on the CARE-XAI benchmark. It finds that fine‑tuned LLMs excel at producing evidence, while biomedical classifiers still lead in verdict‑only prediction. PubMed retrieval helps on PubMed‑aligned datasets but can mislead on broader public‑health claims, prompting the authors to propose Bio‑GRACE, a diagnostic that normalizes gold references to assess retrieval utility.
By Pritam Deka, Prabhjot Singh
The paper investigates why retrieval‑based open‑ended evaluation fails in medical fact verification. By creating two detailed taxonomies—one for retrieval‑stage errors across five quality dimensions and another for verifier‑reasoning errors across six steps—the authors automatically label evidence quality and reasoning errors using an LLM‑as‑Judge pipeline. Their large‑scale stress tests across multiple retrieval methods and verifier models show that increasing model size, reasoning effort, source breadth, or medical fine‑tuning does not eliminate these failure modes, indicating fundamental limits of the retrieve‑then‑verify paradigm in open‑ended medical contexts.
By Heyuan Huang, Jirui Dai, Alexandra DeLucia, Sonal Joshi, Mahsa Yarmohammadi, Jie Gao, Bernal Jim\'enez Guti\'errez, Mark Dredze
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.
By Yinzhu Chen, Abdine Maiga, Hossein A. Rahmani, Emine Yilmaz
The paper introduces BAR, a Budget‑Aware LLM Reasoning framework that enhances post‑discharge risk prediction by integrating external medical knowledge graphs (KGs). BAR refines KGs into disease‑specific evidence graphs with support scores and provenance, then uses an LLM to plan, navigate, and verify evidence within a patient‑specific budget. Experiments on MIMIC‑III and MIMIC‑IV across eight diseases show BAR improves AUPRC by 3.4 points, raises citation precision from 59.8% to 77.9%, and uses only 62‑65% of the allotted budget.
By Chen Chen, Dongjie Wang, Mei Liu, Zijun Yao
arXiv:2609.38543v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Constantly evolving real-world knowledge necessitates models to be updated continuously. Especially in medicine, as clinical evidence changes over time...
By Lukas Thede, Yash Kumar Atri, David Chen, Danielle Bitterman, Matthias Bethge, Tom Hartvigsen, Zeynep Akata
EvidenceNet is a disease‑specific dataset that transforms full‑text biomedical literature into structured evidence records and graph representations, preserving study design, provenance, and quantitative support. Using an LLM‑assisted pipeline, it extracts experimentally grounded findings, normalizes entities, scores evidence quality, and links related records via typed semantic relations. The released subsets—EvidenceNet‑HCC and EvidenceNet‑CRC—contain thousands of evidence records and richly connected graphs, with high extraction and relation‑type accuracy, enabling retrieval‑augmented question answering and graph‑based tasks such as link prediction and target prioritization.
By Chang Zong, Jinyu Chen, Sicheng Lv, Si-tu Xue, Huilin Zheng, Jian Wan, Lei Zhang