arXiv:2609.14819v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and...
By Suzannah E McKinney, Phuc Vu, Samuel A Justice, Christopher Humphries, Alyssa Pradhan, Timothy J Keyes, Bernardo C Bizzo, Keith J Dreyer, Sarah F Mercaldo, James M Hillis
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.
By Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad, Kim Shyu, Leon Oliver, Fergus Sleight, Paul Landau
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
arXiv:2608.28624v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Accurate interpretation of single-visit and longitudinal clinical assessments for Parkinson's disease is time-consuming and often depends on speciali...
By Sana Alamgeera, Denise Goberta, Muhammad Irshad, Anne H. H. Ngu
The paper investigates how medical large language models (LLMs) may exhibit narrative anchoring bias when presented with the same clinical case in different patient voices. Using the NarrativeShield SDoH MedQA dataset, the authors evaluate three Qwen2.5 instruction‑tuned LLMs (1.5B, 3B, 7B) on 300 clinical cases, reporting metrics such as persona‑level accuracy, counterfactual consistency, correct consistency, and narrative sensitivity error. The 7B model achieves the highest accuracy (56.33 %) and correct consistency (40.33 %), yet narrative sensitivity errors remain substantial (31.67 %).
By Ahnaf Atef Choudhury, Ramkrishna Saha
arXiv:2609.37788v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Rubrics support the structured evaluation of language models. We propose a rubric for assessing expressed clinical reasoning in model responses, draw...
By Zhangshu Joshua Jiang, Zina Ibrahim, James T. Teo