Automatic Evaluation of Healthcare LLMs Beyond Question-Answering
Open accessAbstract
Current Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks are often based on open-ended or close-ended QA evaluations, avoiding the requirement of human labor. Close-ended measurements evaluate the factuality of responses but lack expressiveness. Open-ended capture the model's capacity to produce discourse responses but are harder to assess for correctness. These two approaches are commonly used, either independently or together, though their relationship remains poorly understood. This work is focused on the healthcare domain, where both factuality and discourse matter greatly. It introduces a comprehensive, multi-axis suite for healthcare LLM evaluation, exploring correlations between open and close benchmarks and metrics. Findings include blind spots and overlaps in current methodologies. As an updated sanity check, we release a new medical benchmark --CareQA-- with both open and closed variants. Finally, we propose a novel metric for open-ended evaluations -- Relaxed Perplexity -- to mitigate the identified limitations.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
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.
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?
Current paradigms for evaluating hallucination of medical LLMs often fall short of capturing the complexities of real-world clinical practice.
“current paradigms for evaluating hallucination of medical LLMs often fall short of capturing the complexities of real-world clinical practice (Arias-Duart et al. 2025).”
From MHB: Medical Hallucination Benchmark for Large Language Models in Complex Clinical Tasks (2026) · cites this paper as Arias-Duart et al. 2025
The Introduction (page not provided) says that multiple-choice evaluation checks factuality but does not reflect the complexity of real-world clinical settings. The Limitations section similarly cautions that benchmarks may not reflect real-world healthcare practice. The paper supports the broader concern about evaluation, but these passages do not specifically frame it as an assessment of hallucination-evaluation paradigms. (LLM, conf=0.82)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- Aurangzeb Ahmad, Ilker Yaramis, and Taposh Dutta Roy. 2023. Creating trustworthy llms: Dealing with hallucinations in healthcare ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.01463. · arXiv
- Norah Alzahrani, Hisham Abdullah Alyahya, Yazeed Alnumay, Sultan Alrashed, Shaykhah Alsubaie, Yusef Almushaykeh, Faisal Mirza, Nouf Alotaibi, Nora Altwairesh, Areeb Alowisheq, et al. 2024. When benchmarks are targets: Revealing the sen- sitivity of large language model leaderboards. arXiv preprint arXiv:2402.01781. · arXiv
- Suhana Bedi, Yutong Liu, Lucy Orr-Ewing, Dev Dash, Sanmi Koyejo, Alison Callahan, Jason A Fries, Michael Wornow, Akshay Swaminathan, Lisa So- leymani Lehmann, et al. 2024. A systematic review of testing and evaluation of healthcare applications of large language models (llms). medRxiv, pages 2024-04.
- Asma Ben Abacha, Chaitanya Shivade, and Dina Demner-Fushman. 2019. Overview of the mediqa 2019 shared task on textual inference, question en- tailment and question answering. In ACL-BioNLP 2019.
- Asma Ben Abacha, Wen-wai Yim, Yadan Fan, and Thomas Lin. 2023. An empirical study of clinical note generation from doctor-patient encounters. In Proceedings of the 17th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics, pages 2291-2302, Dubrovnik, Croatia. As- sociation for Computational Linguistics.
- Qingyu Chen, Jingcheng Du, Yan Hu, Vipina Kuttichi Keloth, Xueqing Peng, Kalpana Raja, Rui Zhang, Zhiyong Lu, and Hua Xu. 2023. Large language models in biomedical natural language processing: benchmarks, baselines, and recommendations. arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.16326. · arXiv
Cited by
Sorted by citations
MHB: Medical Hallucination Benchmark for Large Language Models in Complex Clinical Tasks
Lu, J., Liu, J., Zheng, X., Yang, M., Wang, J., Wang, P., & Zhang, Y. (2026) · Proceedings of the AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence · doi:10.1609/aaai.v40i45.41243 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Arias-Duart, A., Martin-Torres, P. A., Hinjos, D., Bernabeu-Perez, P., Ganzabal, L. U., Mallo, M. G., Gururajan, A. K., Lopez-Cuena, E., Alvarez-Napagao, S., & Garcia-Gasulla, D.
- Affiliations
- Barcelona Supercomputing Center (ES)
- ORCID
- Venue
- arXiv
- Publisher
- arXiv
- Published
- 2025
- Pages
- 108-130
- arXiv
- 2502.06666
- OpenAlex
- W4411119158
- Cited by
- 8
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 2
- FWCI
- 6.47
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Human Language Technologies (NAACL-HLT) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- UPCommons institutional repository (Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- arXiv (Cornell University)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Topic Modeling
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Natural Language Processing Techniques
- Keywords
- automated assessment, question answering, clinical natural language processing, 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
