arXiv AI By Koyar Afrasyab

Evaluating medical AI under missing information: same-provider judges and human raters change apparent safety

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.

Summary generated by The Flow from the publisher's feed. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jun 15

Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?

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.

By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
arXiv AI
Aug 5

Preferred, Not Safer: Pairwise Preference Is a Poor Proxy for Clinical Safety

arXiv:2608. 02617v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We evaluate whether clinician pairwise preferences provide a reliable signal of clinical safety in large language model (LLM) evaluation using expert feedback from MOOVE (Massive Open Online Validation and Evaluation), a clinician-led platform collecting blinded pairwise preferences alongside multi-criterion rubric ratings.

By Fay Elhassan, David Sasu, Alexandra Kulinkina, Lars Henning Klein, Mary-Anne Hartley