← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, Md Aminul Islam, Elena Zheleva

Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models

Read the original on arXiv AI →

The paper "Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models" reports a small-scale study evaluating eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses. The authors introduce an evaluation framework and annotate 1,067 evidence points across six criteria, using nine metrics to assess performance. Results show that while LLMs have strong recall, they frequently fail to provide valid scientific articles, evidence, or reject unsupported hypotheses, revealing a critical limitation for their use in healthcare.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Aug 26

From Causal Plausibility to Causal Reliability: Evaluating LLMs as Calibrated Direct Causal-Edge Classifiers

The study evaluates 12 instruction‑tuned open‑weight LLMs on six causal‑graph benchmarks, testing five prompting strategies and four confidence sources. Findings show that LLMs tend to over‑predict edges, misclassify indirect or reversed edges as direct, and exhibit high over‑confidence, while conventional confidence estimates are unreliable and agreement signals offer limited improvement. The results suggest LLMs should be used as externally validated soft causal priors rather than definitive causal‑structure evidence.

By Amit Kumar, Elnur Adl Zarabi, Suranjana Trivedy, Zhiqian Chen, Lei Zhang, Kaiqun Fu, Taoran Ji
llmsbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Jun 2

Med-V1: Small Language Models for Zero-shot and Scalable Biomedical Evidence Attribution

arXiv:2603. 05308v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification.

By Qiao Jin, Yin Fang, Lauren He, Yifan Yang, Guangzhi Xiong, Zhizheng Wang, Nicholas Wan, Joey Chan, Donald C. Comeau, Robert Leaman, Charalampos S. Floudas, Aidong Zhang, Michael F. Chiang, Yifan Peng, Zhiyong Lu
llmsnlpbenchmarkssafety
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 16

CLEAR: Cross-Source Evidence Adjudication for Large Language Models in Medicine

The paper introduces CLEAR, an agentic framework designed to improve the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts by adjudicating evidence from multiple sources. CLEAR generates candidate answers from three distinct pathways—parametric knowledge, locally curated corpora, and dynamically retrieved evidence—and then uses an aggregation verifier to evaluate agreement and conflict among these sources. An adjudication module decides whether to preserve or revise conclusions, employing override-guard and challenge-audit mechanisms, and initiates targeted follow-up searches when conflicts remain unresolved.

By Shuai Wang, Yize Zhao, Qingyu Chen
llmsragagents
More like this →
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 7

Cite What You Explore: Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning over Medical KGs with Verifiable Evidence

The paper introduces BAR, a Budget‑Aware LLM Reasoning framework that enhances post‑discharge risk prediction by integrating external medical knowledge graphs (KGs). BAR refines KGs into disease‑specific evidence graphs with support scores and provenance, then uses an LLM to plan, navigate, and verify evidence within a patient‑specific budget. Experiments on MIMIC‑III and MIMIC‑IV across eight diseases show BAR improves AUPRC by 3.4 points, raises citation precision from 59.8% to 77.9%, and uses only 62‑65% of the allotted budget.

By Chen Chen, Dongjie Wang, Mei Liu, Zijun Yao
llms
More like this →