arXiv AI

Evaluating AI Generated Summaries for Cancer Patients

The study evaluates AI-generated summaries for cancer patients using a dual assessment framework that includes human experts and LLM-as-a-judge. Human domain experts—oncology clinicians and patient-facing care staff—assess summary quality on accuracy, clinical relevance, and readability. The research identifies limitations such as omissions and minor inaccuracies, which are then used to iteratively refine prompts, grounding, and safety guardrails.

arXiv Computation and Language
1d ago

Improving Health Literacy through Lay Summarization of Radiological Reports: An Evaluation of BioNER and Retrieval-Augmented Generation

The paper examines how Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Named Entity Recognition (NER) affect the quality of lay summaries of radiology reports. Using a framework that extracts clinically relevant findings via NER and grounds them with RAG, the authors evaluate few‑shot and fine‑tuned versions of Qwen and BioBART. Results show that NER consistently improves readability and overall quality, RAG alone offers no benefit and can introduce hallucinations, and the best performance comes from fine‑tuned BioBART with NER.

By Egecan \c{C}elik Evgin, \.Ilknur Karadeniz, Olcay Taner Y{\i}ld{\i}z
arXiv AI
Jun 6

Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

arXiv:2606. 05436v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care.

By Alejandro Lozano, Keiko Ihara, Ping-Hao Yang, Carrie E. Robertson, Jennifer Stern, Allan Purdy, Hsiangkuo Yuan, Pengfei Zhang, Yulia Orlova, Olga Fermo, Jennifer Hranilovich, Fred Cohen, Todd J. Schwedt, Jenelle A. Jindal, Serena Yeung-Levy, Chia-Chun Chiang
arXiv AI
1d ago

Evaluating the Evaluator: Summarization Metrics and LLM-Judges beyond English

The paper introduces BASSE, a multilingual meta‑evaluation dataset containing 2,040 human‑rated abstractive summaries produced manually or by five LLMs with four prompts. Annotators scored each summary on coherence, consistency, fluency, relevance, and 5W1H using a 5‑point Likert scale. Benchmarking shows proprietary LLM‑judge models best align with human judgments, followed by criteria‑specific automatic metrics, while open‑source judge LLMs perform poorly.

By Jeremy Barnes, Naiara Perez, Alba Bonet-Jover, Bego\~na Altuna
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 27

MTDiag: A Multi-Turn Diagnostic Dataset Towards Clinically Meaningful LLM Evaluation

MTDiag is a newly released multi-turn diagnostic dialogue dataset designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) in clinically meaningful ways. It is built from DDXPlus, MIMIC-IV, and AJCR case reports, covering both common emergency department presentations and rare conditions, and normalizes cases into a canonical schema using UMLS concept identifiers and ICD-10 codes. The dataset includes a UserLM‑8B utterance‑generation pipeline and physician‑validated natural‑language utterances, and introduces clinical knowledge‑grounded metrics that go beyond simple diagnostic accuracy for multi‑turn differential diagnosis tasks.

By Pia Chouayfati, Alexander M. Fichtl, Miriam Ansch\"utz, George Doumat, Georg Groh
arXiv AI
Jun 9

CARE: A Conformal Safety Layer for Medical Summarization

arXiv:2606. 08969v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical summarization, but their outputs can omit medically important information and introduce unsupported claims.

By Suhana Bedi, Bridget Lin, Anson Y. Zhou, Chloe O. Stanwyck, Jenelle A. Jindal, Sanmi Koyejo, David Stutz, Nigam H. Shah
arXiv AI
Jun 9

Summarization is Not Dead Yet

arXiv:2606. 08000v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The progress of large language models (LLMs) has fueled claims that model-generated summaries rival or even surpass human-written references, raising questions about whether summarization remains an open research problem.

By Dongqi Liu, Chenxi Whitehouse, Zheng Zhao, Zhuchen Cao, Jian Li, Yabiao Wang