Assessing Automated Fact-Checking for Medical LLM Responses with Knowledge Graphs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.12817v1
• Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2025 22:58:22 GMT
• Title: Assessing Automated Fact-Checking for Medical LLM Responses with Knowledge Graphs
• Authors: Shasha Zhou, Mingyu Huang, Jack Cole, Charles Britton, Ming Yin, Jan Wolber, Ke Li,
• Abstract summary: The recent proliferation of large language models (LLMs) holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare.<n>This paper investigates the reliability and viability of using medical knowledge graphs (KGs) for the automated factuality evaluation of LLM-generated responses.<n>We introduce FAITH, a framework designed to probe the strengths and limitations of this KG-based approach.
• Score: 12.287636586297756
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The recent proliferation of large language models (LLMs) holds the potential to revolutionize healthcare, with strong capabilities in diverse medical tasks. Yet, deploying LLMs in high-stakes healthcare settings requires rigorous verification and validation to understand any potential harm. This paper investigates the reliability and viability of using medical knowledge graphs (KGs) for the automated factuality evaluation of LLM-generated responses. To ground this investigation, we introduce FAITH, a framework designed to systematically probe the strengths and limitations of this KG-based approach. FAITH operates without reference answers by decomposing responses into atomic claims, linking them to a medical KG, and scoring them based on evidence paths. Experiments on diverse medical tasks with human subjective evaluations demonstrate that KG-grounded evaluation achieves considerably higher correlations with clinician judgments and can effectively distinguish LLMs with varying capabilities. It is also robust to textual variances. The inherent explainability of its scoring can further help users understand and mitigate the limitations of current LLMs. We conclude that while limitations exist, leveraging KGs is a prominent direction for automated factuality assessment in healthcare.

Related papers

• Improving Reliability and Explainability of Medical Question Answering through Atomic Fact Checking in Retrieval-Augmented LLMs [15.61511109105186]
  Large language models (LLMs) exhibit extensive medical knowledge but are prone to hallucinations and inaccurate citations.<n>Current methods, such as Retrieval Augmented Generation, partially address these issues by grounding answers in source documents.<n>We introduce a novel atomic fact-checking framework designed to enhance the reliability and explainability of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-30T17:33:07Z)
• Med-CoDE: Medical Critique based Disagreement Evaluation Framework [72.42301910238861]
  The reliability and accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts remain critical concerns.<n>Current evaluation methods often lack robustness and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of LLM performance.<n>We propose Med-CoDE, a specifically designed evaluation framework for medical LLMs to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:51:11Z)
• Can LLMs Support Medical Knowledge Imputation? An Evaluation-Based Perspective [1.4913052010438639]
  We have explored the use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for imputing missing treatment relationships.<n>LLMs offer promising capabilities in knowledge augmentation, but their application in medical knowledge imputation presents significant risks.<n>Our findings highlight critical limitations, including inconsistencies with established clinical guidelines and potential risks to patient safety.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-29T02:52:17Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Fact or Guesswork? Evaluating Large Language Models' Medical Knowledge with Structured One-Hop Judgments [108.55277188617035]
  Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted in various downstream task domains, but their abilities to directly recall and apply factual medical knowledge remains under-explored.<n>We introduce the Medical Knowledge Judgment dataset (MKJ), a dataset derived from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS), a comprehensive repository of standardized vocabularies and knowledge graphs.<n>Through a binary classification framework, MKJ evaluates LLMs' grasp of fundamental medical facts by having them assess the validity of concise, one-hop statements.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-20T05:27:51Z)
• MedHallBench: A New Benchmark for Assessing Hallucination in Medical Large Language Models [0.0]
  Medical Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated potential in healthcare applications.<n>Their propensity for hallucinations presents substantial risks to patient care.<n>This paper introduces MedHallBench, a comprehensive benchmark framework for evaluating and mitigating hallucinations in MLLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-25T16:51:29Z)
• Comprehensive and Practical Evaluation of Retrieval-Augmented Generation Systems for Medical Question Answering [70.44269982045415]
  Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) has emerged as a promising approach to enhance the performance of large language models (LLMs) We introduce Medical Retrieval-Augmented Generation Benchmark (MedRGB) that provides various supplementary elements to four medical QA datasets. Our experimental results reveals current models' limited ability to handle noise and misinformation in the retrieved documents.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-14T06:19:18Z)
• Reasoning-Enhanced Healthcare Predictions with Knowledge Graph Community Retrieval [61.70489848327436]
  KARE is a novel framework that integrates knowledge graph (KG) community-level retrieval with large language models (LLMs) reasoning.<n>Extensive experiments demonstrate that KARE outperforms leading models by up to 10.8-15.0% on MIMIC-III and 12.6-12.7% on MIMIC-IV for mortality and readmission predictions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-06T18:46:28Z)
• Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self-Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models [4.8775268199830935]
  This study aims to assess the effectiveness of large language models (LLMs) as a self-diagnostic tool and their role in spreading healthcare misinformation.<n>We use open-ended questions to mimic real-world self-diagnosis use cases, and perform sentence dropout to mimic realistic self-diagnosis with missing information.<n>The results highlight the modest capabilities of LLMs, as their responses are often unclear and inaccurate.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-07-10T21:28:26Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.