arXiv:2606. 03198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical AI evaluation increasingly delegates scoring to large language models (LLMs) acting as AI raters, yet their scoring behavior across evaluation conditions has not been quantitatively characterized.
Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
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:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
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: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: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: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.