Cited by 143Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationMachine Learning in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Evaluating large language models as agents in the clinic

Open access

Abstract

Recent developments in large language models (LLMs) have unlocked opportunities for healthcare, from information synthesis to clinical decision support. These LLMs are not just capable of modeling language, but can also act as intelligent “agents” that interact with stakeholders in open-ended conversations and even influence clinical decision-making. Rather than relying on benchmarks that measure a model’s ability to process clinical data or answer standardized test questions, LLM agents can be modeled in high-fidelity simulations of clinical settings and should be assessed for their impact on clinical workflows. These evaluation frameworks, which we refer to as “Artificial Intelligence Structured Clinical Examinations” (“AI-SCE”), can draw from comparable technologies where machines operate with varying degrees of self-governance, such as self-driving cars, in dynamic environments with multiple stakeholders. Developing these robust, real-world clinical evaluations will be crucial towards deploying LLM agents in medical settings.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/s41746-024-01083-y

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Johri, S. et al. Testing the Limits of Language Models: A Conversational Framework for Medical AI Assessment. medRxiv https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.12.23295399v2 (2023). · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Mehandru, N., Miao, B. Y., Almaraz, E. R., Sushil, M., Butte, A. J., & Alaa, A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
Corresponding author
Alaa, Ahmed
Venue
npj Digital Medicine
Published
2024-04-03
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
84-84
ISSN
2398-6352 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4393867901
Cited by
143
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 52 · 2025: 74 · 2024: 17
FWCI
13.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • npj Digital Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • Division of Intramural Research, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (U01AI150741)
  • U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | NIH Office of the Director (OT2OD024611)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
large language models, LLM agents, clinical decision support, AI evaluation framework, clinical simulation, clinical workflow, clinical implementation of AI, benchmarking

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