Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.00063v1
• Date: Sun, 30 Aug 2026 14:37:06 GMT
• Title: Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models
• Abstract summary: The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for search and information retrieval underscores the need to evaluate their reliability in high-stakes domains such as healthcare.<n>We present a preliminary, small-scale study that investigates the accuracy of LLMs in evaluating causal medical claims.
• Score: 4.223176941421543
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for search and information retrieval underscores the need to evaluate their reliability in high-stakes domains such as healthcare. Although LLMs can effectively answer questions about diseases, symptoms, and treatments, their ability to accurately assess causal relationships and ground their conclusions in verified scientific evidence remains unclear. Here, we present a preliminary, small-scale study that investigates the accuracy of LLMs in evaluating causal medical claims and supporting them with peer-reviewed research. We propose an evaluation framework for causal hypothesis verification that can be used to systematically track the performance of existing and future LLMs. We assess the performance of eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses to evaluate whether they can reliably verify these hypotheses using scientific evidence from the literature. We systematically annotate the scientific evidence they provide according to six criteria (a total of 1,067 annotation points) and assess them with nine evaluation metrics. Our analysis shows that while LLMs exhibit strong recall, they often perform poorly at providing valid scientific articles and evidence for support and at rejecting unsupported hypotheses. These findings highlight a critical limitation of current LLMs, as they cannot yet be trusted fully to verify causal relationships from the biomedical literature. This work underscores the need for rigorous evaluation before using LLMs for search and retrieval in healthcare settings.

Related papers

• IV Co-Scientist: Multi-Agent LLM Framework for Causal Instrumental Variable Discovery [61.15184885636171]
  In the presence of confounding between an endogenous variable and the outcome, instrumental variables (IVs) are used to isolate the causal effect of the endogenous variable.<n>We investigate whether large language models (LLMs) can aid in this task.<n>We introduce IV Co-Scientist, a multi-agent system that proposes, critiques, and refines IVs for a given treatment-outcome pair.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-08T12:28:29Z)
• LLM-REVal: Can We Trust LLM Reviewers Yet? [70.58742663985652]
  Large language models (LLMs) have inspired researchers to integrate them extensively into the academic workflow.<n>This study focuses on how the deep integration of LLMs into both peer-review and research processes may influence scholarly fairness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T10:30:20Z)
• Toward Reliable Scientific Hypothesis Generation: Evaluating Truthfulness and Hallucination in Large Language Models [18.850296587858946]
  We introduce TruthHypo, a benchmark for assessing the capabilities of large language models in generating truthful hypotheses.<n>KnowHD is a knowledge-based hallucination detector to evaluate how well hypotheses are grounded in existing knowledge.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-20T16:49:40Z)
• 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)
• ResearchBench: Benchmarking LLMs in Scientific Discovery via Inspiration-Based Task Decomposition [67.26124739345332]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated potential in assisting scientific research, yet their ability to discover high-quality research hypotheses remains unexamined.<n>We introduce the first large-scale benchmark for evaluating LLMs with a near-sufficient set of sub-tasks of scientific discovery.<n>We develop an automated framework that extracts critical components - research questions, background surveys, inspirations, and hypotheses - from scientific papers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T08:09:15Z)
• 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)
• CliMedBench: A Large-Scale Chinese Benchmark for Evaluating Medical Large Language Models in Clinical Scenarios [50.032101237019205]
  CliMedBench is a comprehensive benchmark with 14 expert-guided core clinical scenarios. The reliability of this benchmark has been confirmed in several ways.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-04T15:15:36Z)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Don't Ignore Dual Logic Ability of LLMs while Privatizing: A Data-Intensive Analysis in Medical Domain [19.46334739319516]
  We study how the dual logic ability of LLMs is affected during the privatization process in the medical domain. Our results indicate that incorporating general domain dual logic data into LLMs not only enhances LLMs' dual logic ability but also improves their accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-08T08:20:46Z)
• 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)
• Appraising the Potential Uses and Harms of LLMs for Medical Systematic Reviews [21.546144601311187]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer potential to automatically generate literature reviews on demand. LLMs sometimes generate inaccurate (and potentially misleading) texts by hallucination or omission.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-19T17:09:19Z)

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.