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
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 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
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
arXiv:2608.30393v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Biomedical artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly extract, organize, and reuse scientific claims from literature, clinical trials, and regul...
By Negin Sadat Babaiha, Stefan Geissler, Marie-Christine Simon, Martin Hofmann-Apitius, Marc Jacobs
arXiv:2603. 03292v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) exhibit high reasoning capacity in medical question-answering, but their tendency to produce hallucinations and outdated knowledge poses critical risks in healthcare fields.
By Wenhao Wu, Zhentao Tang, Yafu Li, Shixiong Kai, Mingxuan Yuan, Zhenhong Sun, Chunlin Chen, Zhi Wang
arXiv:2606. 19602v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Patient contexts span hundreds of heterogeneous documents and thousands of structured data points, yet the document-level metadata that AI systems need for retrieval and triage is absent or incomplete.
By Osman Alperen \c{C}inar-Kora\c{s}, Marie Bauer, Sameh Khattab, Merlin Engelke, Moon Kim, Stephan Settelmeier, Shigeyasu Sugawara, Fabian Freisleben, Felix Nensa, Jens Kleesiek
arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.
By Qiao Jin, Yin Fang, Lauren He, Yifan Yang, Guangzhi Xiong, Zhizheng Wang, Nicholas Wan, Joey Chan, Donald C. Comeau, Robert Leaman, Charalampos S. Floudas, Aidong Zhang, Michael F. Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu
arXiv:2603. 01131v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Clinical diagnosis is a gradual process of evidence integration, in which physicians move from symptoms and medical history to examinations, competing hypotheses, disease relations, and treatment decisions.
By Yuqi Zhan, Xinyue Wu, Tianyu Lin, Yutong Bao, Xiaoyu Wang, Weihao Cheng, Huangwei Chen, Feiwei Qin, Zhu Zhu