A primer on evaluation methods for large language models in healthcare

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2609.14819v1
• Date: Sun, 13 Sep 2026 22:21:21 GMT
• Title: A primer on evaluation methods for large language models in healthcare
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and not harm.<n>This review covers four key areas of LLM evaluation: principles of study design, statistical methods, capability evaluation and clinical context evaluation.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and not harm. This evaluation can be more challenging than traditional machine learning for many reasons, including probabilistic and open-ended outputs, and behavior that shifts with prompt design and accumulated context. This review covers four key areas of LLM evaluation: principles of study design, statistical methods, capability evaluation and clinical context evaluation. Capability evaluation considers different benchmarks, including multiple-choice, agentic and multi-turn benchmarks, alongside operational metrics like token usage. Clinical context evaluation addresses establishing accuracy of free text outputs, such as human review and LLM-as-a-judge, and clinical trial approaches. Across sections, we describe underlying concepts and potential pitfalls, while emphasizing the importance of aligning evaluation methods with the research question. Together, this article aims to provide a pragmatic basis for designing and executing rigorous evaluations of healthcare LLMs.

Related papers

• Position: Thematic Analysis of Unstructured Clinical Transcripts with Large Language Models [5.398283020969301]
  Large language models (LLMs) can support thematic analysis of unstructured clinical transcripts.<n>Existing evaluation methods vary widely, hindering progress and preventing meaningful benchmarking across studies.<n>We propose an evaluation framework centered on three dimensions: validity, reliability, and interpretability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-18T04:02:00Z)
• The Scales of Justitia: A Comprehensive Survey on Safety Evaluation of LLMs [57.1838332916627]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have shown remarkable capabilities in Natural Language Processing (NLP)<n>Their widespread deployment has also raised significant safety concerns.<n>LLMs-generated content can exhibit unsafe behaviors such as toxicity, bias, or misinformation, especially in adversarial contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-06T05:50:50Z)
• 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)
• Large Language Models for Outpatient Referral: Problem Definition, Benchmarking and Challenges [34.10494503049667]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to outpatient referral tasks across healthcare systems.<n>There is a lack of standardized evaluation criteria to assess their effectiveness.<n>We propose a comprehensive evaluation framework specifically designed for such systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-11T11:05:42Z)
• 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)
• Learning to Align Multi-Faceted Evaluation: A Unified and Robust Framework [61.38174427966444]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are being used more and more extensively for automated evaluation in various scenarios.<n>Previous studies have attempted to fine-tune open-source LLMs to replicate the evaluation explanations and judgments of powerful proprietary models.<n>We propose a novel evaluation framework, ARJudge, that adaptively formulates evaluation criteria and synthesizes both text-based and code-driven analyses.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T06:31:45Z)
• MEDIC: Towards a Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating LLMs in Clinical Applications [2.838746648891565]
  We introduce MEDIC, a framework assessing Large Language Models (LLMs) across five critical dimensions of clinical competence. We apply MEDIC to evaluate LLMs on medical question-answering, safety, summarization, note generation, and other tasks. Results show performance disparities across model sizes, baseline vs medically finetuned models, and have implications on model selection for applications requiring specific model strengths.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-11T14:44:51Z)
• A Framework for Human Evaluation of Large Language Models in Healthcare Derived from Literature Review [11.28580626017631]
  We highlight a notable need for a standardized and consistent human evaluation approach. We propose a comprehensive and practical framework for human evaluation of large language models (LLMs) This framework aims to improve the reliability, generalizability, and applicability of human evaluation of LLMs in different healthcare applications.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-04T04:16:07Z)
• Does Biomedical Training Lead to Better Medical Performance? [7.341724934479004]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are expected to significantly contribute to patient care, diagnostics, and administrative processes.<n>This study investigates the effect of biomedical training in the context of six practical medical tasks evaluating $25$ models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-05T12:51:37Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation for LLMs' Clinical Capabilities: Metric, Data, and Algorithm [15.627870862369784]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing interests to improve clinical efficiency for medical diagnosis. We propose an automatic evaluation paradigm tailored to assess the LLMs' capabilities in delivering clinical services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T06:17:54Z)
• Attribute Structuring Improves LLM-Based Evaluation of Clinical Text Summaries [56.31117605097345]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to generate accurate clinical text summaries, but still struggle with issues regarding grounding and evaluation.<n>Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using Attribute Structuring (AS), which structures the summary evaluation process.<n>AS consistently improves the correspondence between human annotations and automated metrics in clinical text summarization.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-01T21:59:03Z)
• F-Eval: Assessing Fundamental Abilities with Refined Evaluation Methods [102.98899881389211]
  We propose F-Eval, a bilingual evaluation benchmark to evaluate the fundamental abilities, including expression, commonsense and logic. For reference-free subjective tasks, we devise new evaluation methods, serving as alternatives to scoring by API models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-01-26T13:55:32Z)
• Exploring the Reliability of Large Language Models as Customized Evaluators for Diverse NLP Tasks [65.69651759036535]
  We analyze whether large language models (LLMs) can serve as reliable alternatives to humans.<n>This paper explores both conventional tasks (e.g., story generation) and alignment tasks (e.g., math reasoning)<n>We find that LLM evaluators can generate unnecessary criteria or omit crucial criteria, resulting in a slight deviation from the experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-30T17:04:35Z)

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.