Leveraging Computerized Adaptive Testing for Cost-effective Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medical Benchmarking

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.23506v1
• Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 10:45:08 GMT
• Title: Leveraging Computerized Adaptive Testing for Cost-effective Evaluation of Large Language Models in Medical Benchmarking
• Abstract summary: The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare creates an urgent need for scalable and psychometrically sound evaluation methods.<n>We propose and validate a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) framework grounded in item response theory (IRT)<n>We show that CAT-derived proficiency estimates achieved a near-perfect correlation with full-bank estimates.
• Score: 1.517383866999239
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: The rapid proliferation of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare creates an urgent need for scalable and psychometrically sound evaluation methods. Conventional static benchmarks are costly to administer repeatedly, vulnerable to data contamination, and lack calibrated measurement properties for fine-grained performance tracking. We propose and validate a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) framework grounded in item response theory (IRT) for efficient assessment of standardized medical knowledge in LLMs. The study comprises a two-phase design: a Monte Carlo simulation to identify optimal CAT configurations and an empirical evaluation of 38 LLMs using a human-calibrated medical item bank. Each model completed both the full item bank and an adaptive test that dynamically selected items based on real-time ability estimates and terminated upon reaching a predefined reliability threshold (standard error <= 0.3). Results show that CAT-derived proficiency estimates achieved a near-perfect correlation with full-bank estimates (r = 0.988) while using only 1.3 percent of the items. Evaluation time was reduced from several hours to minutes per model, with substantial reductions in token usage and computational cost, while preserving inter-model performance rankings. This work establishes a psychometric framework for rapid, low-cost benchmarking of foundational medical knowledge in LLMs. The proposed adaptive methodology is intended as a standardized pre-screening and continuous monitoring tool and is not a substitute for real-world clinical validation or safety-oriented prospective studies.

Related papers

• LLM-based Agents for Forecasting and Prediction: Methods, Training, Evaluation, and Applications [76.41731220830714]
  Large language models (LLMs) now support forecasting systems that combine language-based reasoning with temporal data, evidence retrieval, external tools, and iterative prediction.<n>We examine applications in finance, weather, health, energy, and operations, and we summarize the benchmarks and datasets used for evaluation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-24T10:02:39Z)
• EHRBench: An Automated and Reliable EHR-based Benchmark for Clinical Decision Making with LLMs [51.129595320595094]
  Clinical decision-making (CDM) is central to real-world clinical, where clinicians infer diagnoses, select treatments, or anticipate future health outcomes under incomplete evidence.<n>LLM models are increasingly used to support these decisions due to strong language capabilities, broad biomedical knowledge, and efficiency.<n>The reliability of LLMs on real-world clinical decision tasks remains insufficiently understood.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T22:38:26Z)
• Measuring What Matters: Benchmarking Generative, Multimodal, and Agentic AI in Healthcare [0.0]
  Key challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alone, but the absence of systematic methods to measure reliability, safety, and clinical relevance under real-world conditions.<n>Current benchmarks test what a model knows; too few test whether it can perform reliably and without failing across the full complexity of real clinical tasks.<n>High benchmark scores give a false sense of deployment readiness, and the gap between performance and utility widens precisely as AI systems take on more consequential clinical roles.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-08T20:12:14Z)
• PREBA: Surgical Duration Prediction via PCA-Weighted Retrieval-Augmented LLMs and Bayesian Averaging Aggregation [51.96735866702332]
  PREBA is a retrieval-augmented framework that integrates PCA-weighted retrieval and Bayesian averaging aggregation.<n> PREBA significantly improves performance-for instance, reducing MAE by up to 40% and raising R2 from -0.13 to 0.62 over zero-shot inference.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T07:19:23Z)
• LiveMedBench: A Contamination-Free Medical Benchmark for LLMs with Automated Rubric Evaluation [22.211535340726073]
  LiveMedBench is a continuously updated benchmark that harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities.<n>LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria.<n>Extensive evaluation reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-10T23:38:25Z)
• A Federated and Parameter-Efficient Framework for Large Language Model Training in Medicine [59.78991974851707]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated strong performance on medical benchmarks, including question answering and diagnosis.<n>Most medical LLMs are trained on data from a single institution, which faces limitations in generalizability and safety in heterogeneous systems.<n>We introduce the model-agnostic and parameter-efficient federated learning framework for adapting LLMs to medical applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-29T18:48:21Z)
• From Scores to Steps: Diagnosing and Improving LLM Performance in Evidence-Based Medical Calculations [45.414878840652115]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated promising performance on medical benchmarks.<n>However, their ability to perform medical calculations remains underexplored and poorly evaluated.<n>In this work, we revisit medical calculation evaluation with a stronger focus on clinical trustworthiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T09:10:26Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• Beyond Scaling: Measuring and Predicting the Upper Bound of Knowledge Retention in Language Model Pre-Training [68.94373533768501]
  We model knowledge retention, the capacity of a pre-trained language model to memorize factual information from its corpus, and introduce a principled method to estimate it prior to training.<n>We propose Size-dependent Mutual Information (SMI), an information-theoretic predictor that integrates knowledge frequency, knowledge specificity, and model size to forecast closed-book question answering (QA) accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-06T13:23:53Z)
• Improving Clinical Decision Support through Interpretable Machine Learning and Error Handling in Electronic Health Records [6.594072648536156]
  Trust-MAPS translates clinical domain knowledge into high-dimensional, mixed-integer programming models.<n>Trust-scores emerge as clinically meaningful features that not only boost predictive performance for clinical decision support tasks, but also lend interpretability to ML models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-08-21T15:14:49Z)
• Position: AI Evaluation Should Learn from How We Test Humans [65.36614996495983]
  We argue that psychometrics, a theory originating in the 20th century for human assessment, could be a powerful solution to the challenges in today's AI evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-18T09:54:33Z)

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.