arXiv Computation and Language By Raad Bin Tareaf, Murad Al-Rajab, Samia Loucif

The widening evaluation gap in medical large language model research 2023 to 2026

Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →

The article examines how medical research lags behind the rapid evolution of large language models (LLMs). From January 2023 to June 2026, PubMed records in fourteen clinical domains grew 45‑fold, yet only 2.5 % employed randomized, controlled, or prospective designs. The evaluation gap widened from 1.33 to 6.08 quarters, with randomized trials assessing models that were on average 4.6 quarters older than other studies, and 62 % of such trials evaluated discontinued model families.

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 Computation and Language.

arXiv AI
Sep 7

Model Retirement Creates Reproducibility Risk in Biomedical AI Publications

The study examined biomedical research articles from 2022 to March 2026 that employed large language models (LLMs). It found that 42% of the most frequently used models were already retired or scheduled to retire within two years of publication, with a median retirement interval of 538 days. This high rate of model deprecation threatens the reproducibility of biomedical AI research.

By Nathan Wolfrath, Meghan Conroy, Thomas Kosten, Dave Bell, Bhabishya Neupane, Jonah Kindel, Anjishnu Banerjee, Priya Deshpande, Bradley Taylor, Anai N. Kothari
arXiv AI
Aug 25

What Proves You Wrong: Benchmarking Language Models on Falsifiable Research Ideation

The paper introduces Lit2Test, a benchmark that evaluates language models’ research idea proposals by requiring each idea to include a falsifiable outcome, thereby making quality decidable. Built from 200 real-paper neighborhoods, the benchmark gathers proposals from four frontier models and compares them via 1,200 blind pairwise judgments, with reliability checks and human calibration. The results show a consistent ranking of the models, driven by test and metric quality rather than fluency, and the authors release the benchmark and related artifacts for public use.

By Ziyue Wang (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Aomufei Yuan (Peking University), Yiran Yao (Tianjin University), Linli Yao (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Hongyao Zuo (Tianjin University), Ziwen Gong (Hainan University), Yuanxin Liu (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Shicheng Li (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Yishuo Cai (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Tong Yang (Peking University), Xu Sun (State Key Laboratory of Multimedia Information Processing, School of Computer Science, Peking University), Xiaohui Li (Huawei Technologies), Haoli Bai (Huawei Technologies)
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

LLMs Anchor on Chief Complaint and Fail to Integrate Evidence in Sequential Clinical Triage

The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on sequential emergency department triage, where acuity labels are predicted from progressively longer nurse‑patient conversations. Six LLMs were tested at five checkpoints on simulated and physician‑authored dialogues, showing a decline from moderate‑to‑substantial agreement on full records to only fair‑to‑moderate agreement at each checkpoint. The models consistently anchor on chief complaint exchanges and fail to integrate later evidence, yielding low agreement with clinicians (QWK 0.295 vs. 0.887‑0.929) and concentrating predictions on ESI‑2 and ESI‑3. whyItMatters":"The findings reveal that LLMs, despite strong offline performance, cannot reliably handle the sequential nature of real‑time triage, highlighting a critical gap for safe deployment in emergency settings."

By Dipankar Srirag, Haokai Zhao, Ashutosh Kumar, Eleanor Hopper, Michael Dalton, Quoc Dung Nguyen, Aditya Joshi, Salil S. Kanhere, Padmanesan Narasimhan
arXiv AI
Sep 2

Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models

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.

By Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, Md Aminul Islam, Elena Zheleva
arXiv AI
2d ago

Counterfactual Auditing of Bias in Open-Source Large Language Models for Clinical Triage

The study evaluates counterfactual bias in ten open‑source large language models (LLMs) for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. By creating paired clinical vignettes that differ only in demographic or socioeconomic variables, the authors measure shifts in acuity assignment, finding that counterfactual sensitivity varies widely across model families and sizes. A fine‑tuned Qwen2.5‑7B model exhibited the lowest sensitivity, while larger or medical‑domain models sometimes showed greater shifts, highlighting the need for fairness assessment before clinical deployment.

By Manar Aljohani, Brandon Ho, Kenneth McKinley, Dennis Ren, Xuan Wang
arXiv AI
Jul 16

Ask Before You Diagnose: Safe-Psych, a Sequential Evaluation Benchmark for LLMs in Psychiatry

arXiv:2607. 13036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving.

By Oriana Presacan, Andreea Grama, Larisa Irimin\u{a}, Alireza Nik, Jaya Ojha, Vajira Thambawita, Ciprian I. B\u{a}cil\u{a}, Bogdan Ionescu, Michael A. Riegler