arXiv Computation and Language
Quantitative Evidence Mining for Plausibility-Aware Biomedical AI
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
Related stories
arXiv AI
Sep 7
A Semantic Model of Genetic Evidence: A Step Toward Bridging the Basic-Science-Clinic Gap
The article presents a new semantic model for representing scientific evidence, specifically tailored to genetics, that extends existing standards by adding fine‑grained, domain‑specific structure. It aligns with FHIR Evidence and SEPIO, incorporates a compact vocabulary validated by SHACL, and was tested in a human‑AI annotation pilot on six genetics papers, producing 28 evidence items and 95 source‑anchored assertions. The authors argue that this model advances trustworthy, AI‑ready infrastructure for variant interpretation by providing a reference data model and validation schema for genetic evidence.
arXiv AI
Sep 10
Building evidence-based knowledge bases from full-text literature for disease-specific biomedical reasoning
EvidenceNet is a disease‑specific dataset that transforms full‑text biomedical literature into structured evidence records and graph representations, preserving study design, provenance, and quantitative support. Using an LLM‑assisted pipeline, it extracts experimentally grounded findings, normalizes entities, scores evidence quality, and links related records via typed semantic relations. The released subsets—EvidenceNet‑HCC and EvidenceNet‑CRC—contain thousands of evidence records and richly connected graphs, with high extraction and relation‑type accuracy, enabling retrieval‑augmented question answering and graph‑based tasks such as link prediction and target prioritization.
arXiv Machine Learning
Aug 11
Integrating RCTs, RWD, AI/ML and Statistics: Next-Generation Evidence Synthesis
arXiv:2511. 19735v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs)have been the cornerstone of clinical evidence; however, their cost, duration, and restrictive eligibility criteria limit power and external validity.
arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 24
MedRAGChecker: Claim-Level Verification for Biomedical Retrieval-Augmented Generation
MedRAGChecker is a claim-level verification framework designed for biomedical retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG). It decomposes generated answers into atomic claims and assesses each claim’s support by combining evidence‑grounded natural language inference with biomedical knowledge‑graph consistency signals. The aggregated claim decisions provide diagnostics that distinguish retrieval and generation failures, such as faithfulness, under‑evidence, contradiction, and safety‑critical errors, and the system is distilled into compact models for scalable evaluation.
arXiv AI
2d ago
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.
arXiv AI
Aug 25
Beyond Verdicts: A Graph-Based Analysis of Human and LLM Reasoning in Scientific Fact-Checking
The paper introduces a typed reasoning graph framework to compare human and large language model (LLM) reasoning paths in scientific fact‑checking. By modeling explanations as graphs linking false claims to study context, findings, premises, and fallacy labels, the authors enable one‑to‑one alignment of human and LLM reasoning at the sub‑graph level. Using 84 false claims from MISSCIPLUS, they evaluate GPT‑5, Claude Opus 4.7, and Qwen3‑32B, finding distinct performance patterns: Qwen3‑32B has the lowest verdict failure rate, GPT‑5 shows the highest human alignment, and Claude Opus 4.7, while weak at verdict prediction, often produces valid reasoning in successful cases.