The study evaluates Jev 1.13, a non‑generative model that selects from predefined answer options, on four medical benchmarks: MetaMedQA, PubMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and the NEJM Case Challenges. Jev’s top‑1 accuracy matches GPT‑6 Sol with medium reasoning on PubMedQA but falls behind on MetaMedQA, DiagnosisArena‑MCQ, and NEJM cases. While Jev shows strong calibration on MetaMedQA and is fast and inexpensive, its performance on examination and complex diagnostic tasks is substantially lower, indicating the need for task‑specific validation before clinical deployment.
arXiv:2609.34024v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jev is a non-generative "System One" model that assigns probabilities to predefined answer options and cannot answer outside them. Its accuracy and c...
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.
arXiv:2609.37647v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Jev is a commercial System One model from TypeSafe AI that does not generate text: given a state and typed questions, it returns a choice from fixed...
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...
The paper presents a system for the MedReason 2026 challenge that tackles both multiple‑choice and open‑ended medical visual question answering using offline, containerized inference. Key findings include that comparing answer semantics rather than labels boosts retrieval‑only accuracy from 20.0 % to 57.5 % on a 200‑case holdout, and that varying the number of in‑prompt retrieved examples has minimal impact on final accuracy (93.5 %–94.0 %). The final system achieves 94.0 % MCQ accuracy on the development set and 93.20 % on the official pre‑evaluation, far surpassing the off‑the‑shelf baseline. "whyItMatters":"The results demonstrate that semantic‑aware retrieval and careful adapter tuning can dramatically improve medical VQA performance, offering a practical approach for high‑accuracy, offline inference in clinical settings."
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:2606. 16890v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Aggregate accuracy benchmarks conceal a systematic structure in how large language models fail at electronic health record (EHR) question answering: questions requiring more inferential steps produce disproportionately more errors.
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.
The study investigates whether Jev, a typed classifier that outputs probabilities over allowed answers without generating text, can replace large language model (LLM) rubric judges. Across nine panels from seven benchmarks, Jev’s accuracy differed significantly from LLM judges in only 8 of 27 paired comparisons, performing best on binary criteria and worse only on graded ones, while most other comparisons were inconclusive. In terms of cost and speed, Jev was 29 to 325 times cheaper and 30 to 220 times faster than the flash‑tier LLM judges, and a cascade approach that defers uncertain Jev verdicts to an LLM yielded only modest gains. whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that a lightweight classifier like Jev can serve as an efficient first‑stage evaluator, potentially reducing the reliance on expensive and slow LLM judges in automated grading pipelines."
arXiv:2608.21601v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Benchmarks for scientific artificial intelligence are mostly written to be scored: multiple-choice questions, curated agent tasks with reference soluti...
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on unprocessed electronic medical record data for clinical registry abstraction, focusing on the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. In a pilot at one academic center, the LLM identified candidate data sources for each registry question, which abstractors used to define question‑specific document sets. In a subsequent validation at a second center, the LLM answered 157 registry questions with an overall mean accuracy of 91.5%, but accuracy dropped from 96% for simple medication or event flag questions to 62% for event timing questions, reflecting increasing ambiguity and required clinical reasoning.