Cited by 22Multi-Criteria Decision MakingFuzzy and Soft Set TheoryArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare

A Novel Evaluation Framework for Medical LLMs: Combining Fuzzy Logic and MCDM for Medical Relation and Clinical Concept Extraction

Alamoodi, A. H., Zughoul, Omar, David, Dianese, Garfan, Salem, Pamucar, Dragan, Albahri, O. S., Albahri, A. S., Yussof, Salman +1 more·2024·Journal of Medical Systems

Abstract

Artificial intelligence (AI) has become a crucial element of modern technology, especially in the healthcare sector, which is apparent given the continuous development of large language models (LLMs), which are utilized in various domains, including medical beings. However, when it comes to using these LLMs for the medical domain, there's a need for an evaluation platform to determine their suitability and drive future development efforts. Towards that end, this study aims to address this concern by developing a comprehensive Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) approach that is specifically designed to evaluate medical LLMs. The success of AI, particularly LLMs, in the healthcare domain, depends on their efficacy, safety, and ethical compliance. Therefore, it is essential to have a robust evaluation framework for their integration into medical contexts. This study proposes using the Fuzzy-Weighted Zero-InConsistency (FWZIC) method extended to p, q-quasirung orthopair fuzzy set (p, q-QROFS) for weighing evaluation criteria. This extension enables the handling of uncertainties inherent in medical decision-making processes. The approach accommodates the imprecise and multifaceted nature of real-world medical data and criteria by incorporating fuzzy logic principles. The MultiAtributive Ideal-Real Comparative Analysis (MAIRCA) method is employed for the assessment of medical LLMs utilized in the case study of this research. The results of this research revealed that "Medical Re…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10916-024-02090-y

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alamoodi, A. H., Zughoul, O., David, D., Garfan, S., Pamucar, D., Albahri, O. S., Albahri, A. S., Yussof, S., & Sharaf, I. M.
Affiliations
  • Applied Science Private University (JO)
  • Ahmed Bin Mohammed Military College (QA)
  • Sultan Idris Education University (MY)
  • Western Caspian University (AZ)
  • Universiti Tenaga Nasional (MY)
  • Higher Technological Institute (EG)
Corresponding author
Alamoodi, A. H.
Venue
Journal of Medical Systems
Published
2024-08-31
Volume
48
Issue
1
Pages
81-81
ISSN
  • 0148-5598 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-689X
OpenAlex
W4402096066
Cited by
22
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 3
FWCI
6.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Medical Systems (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Multi-Criteria Decision Making
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Fuzzy and Soft Set Theory
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Keywords
medical large language models, LLM evaluation framework, fuzzy multi-criteria decision making, MAIRCA, clinical concept extraction, healthcare AI adoption
MeSH terms
Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Humans, Fuzzy Logic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review