TL;DR
A single LLM verifier lacks sufficient reliability to serve as a stand-alone judge of clinical reasoning at scale, and that structured human oversight remains essential.
A reproducible estimate of diagnostic retrieval accuracy across four widely used model configurations is provided to establish a baseline for further clinical validation and establish a baseline for further clinical validation.
Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Gemini are increasingly used to answer medical and psychological questions, yet systematic evaluations across domains with differing reasoning demands remain limited. We present a multi-domain expert evaluation of two state-of-the-art models, ChatGPT Pro (v5.2) and Gemin...
Bottom-up incremental scoring showed the closest alignment with human assessment in clinical AI evaluation, underscoring the need for standardised prompt architectures in clinical AI evaluation.
The results show that QA evaluation should account for how inferential relations compose across a reasoning trace, rather than relying only on final answers or LLMs as verifiers.
It is shown that LLM-assisted extraction in neuroimaging AI is a complexity-stratified workflow design problem: low-complexity neuroimaging variables may be selectively automated, while medium-complexity variables require rapid verification, and high-complexity methodological variables should remain human-led.
Embedding domain-specific knowledge into LLMs may improve performance on specialized exam-style thoracic-surgery questions on this text-only benchmark, however, the present 56-item evaluation does not establish clinical equivalence, diagnostic accuracy in practice, multimodal competence, or readiness for real-world cli...
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.
