A Scoping Review of LLM-as-a-Judge in Healthcare and the MedJUDGE Framework

May combine two claims.

The field lacks a comprehensive review of LaaJ approaches used to evaluate LLMs in healthcare applications, creating a significant gap in guidance for safe evaluation architectures in medicine.

“The field lacks a comprehensive review of LaaJ approaches used to evaluate LLMs in healthcare applications, creating a significant gap in guidance for safe evaluation architectures in medicine.”

May combine two claims.

These LaaJ risks are well-documented in general text generation but remain largely unexamined in clinical contexts.

“While well-documented in general text generation, these risks remain largely unexamined in clinical contexts.”

May combine two claims.

Several recent reviews focus on LLM evaluation in healthcare, but none on LaaJ frameworks in clinical contexts.

“Several recent reviews focus on LLM evaluation in healthcare, but none on the LaaJ frameworks in clinical contexts.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Two training approaches appear in the reinforcement learning category: RLHF, where models are fine-tuned using human preference judgments, and RLAIF, where LLM-generated preferences replace human annotations.

“Two training approaches appear: Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback (RLHF) 36 , where models are fine-tuned using human preference judgments, and Reinforcement Learning from AI Feedback (RLAIF) 37 , where LLM-generated preferences replace human annotations.”

• cites [36]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [37]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

LLM judges are used in ensemble approaches, where multiple instances of the same or similar models evaluate independently and their outputs are combined through voting or averaging to reduce individual model variance.

“4) ensemble approaches, where multiple instances of the same or similar models evaluate independently and their outputs are combined through voting or averaging to reduce individual model variance.”

May combine two claims.

The median number of human evaluators was 2 (IQR: 0-5) across all studies and 3 (IQR: 2-7) among the 36 studies with human involvement.

“The median number of human evaluators was 2 (IQR: 0-5) across all studies and 3 (IQR: 2-7) among the 36 studies with human involvement.”

May combine two claims.

Pairwise comparison appeared in 7 studies (14.3%), while agent-based multistep evaluation characterized 6 studies (12.2%).

“Pairwise comparison appeared in 7 studies (14.3%), while agent-based multistep evaluation characterized 6 studies (12.2%).”

May combine two claims.

Only 13 studies (26.5%) conducted any form of bias testing, while 36 (73.5%) reported none.

“Only 13 studies (26.5%) conducted any form of bias testing, while 36 (73.5%) reported none (Table 2; Supplementary Fig. 5, Supplementary Table 10).”

May combine two claims.

A clear inverse relationship emerged between task structure and agreement: structured documentation tasks achieved 0.82-0.93 agreement, semi-structured assessments reached 0.64-0.79, and complex reasoning tasks showed 0.47-0.71.

“A clear inverse relationship emerged between task structure and agreement: structured documentation tasks achieved 0.82-0.93agreement, semi-structured assessments reached 0.64-0.79,and complex reasoning tasks showed 0.47-0.71.”

May combine two claims.

Clinical content evaluation (n = 17, 34.7%) encompassed clinical documentation and summarization (n = 7, 14.3%), report generation (n = 4, 8.2%), and information extraction (n = 6, 12.2%).

“Clinical content evaluation (n = 17, 34.7%) encompassed clinical documentation and summarization (n = 7, 14.3%), report generation (n= 4, 8.2%), and information extraction (n= 6, 12.2% ).”

May combine two claims.

Medical knowledge and reasoning assessment (n = 17, 34.7%) included medical QA and reasoning (11 studies) and diagnostic support (6 studies).

“Medical knowledge and reasoning assessment (n = 17, 34.7%) included medical QA and reasoning (11 studies) and diagnostic support (6 studies).”

May combine two claims.

All four G-EVAL studies applied it within pointwise scoring designs; three used it to evaluate RAG-based surgical clinical decision support systems, and one applied it to radiology report classification with KNN-based dynamic few-shot retrieval.

“All four applied G-EVAL within pointwise scoring designs; three [49][50][51] (Ozmen et al. 2025a, 2025b, 2025c) used it to evaluate RAG-based surgical clinical decision support systems, and one 52 applied it to radiology report classification with KNN-based dynamic few-shot retrieval.”

• cites [49]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [50]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [51]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Patient-facing and decision support applications (n = 12, 24.5%) covered patient education and communication (6 studies) and clinical decision support systems (6 studies).

“Patient-facing and decision support applications (n = 12, 24.5%) covered patient education and communication (6 studies) and clinical decision support systems (6 studies).”

May combine two claims.

Among studies with extensive panels, HealthBench engaged 262 physicians and MedHELM recruited 49 clinicians spanning 14 specialties across 4 institutions.

“Among studies with extensive panels, HealthBench 43 engaged 262 physicians and MedHELM 44 recruited 49 clinicians spanning 14 specialties across 4 institutions.”

• cites [43]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [44]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Searches across six electronic databases yielded 12,379 citations.

“Searches across six electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE and Epub Ahead of Print, Ovid EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, ACM Digital Library, and IEEE Xplore) yielded 12,379 citations.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The third category of LaaJ is that LLM judges are used as a component in a multi-agent system to evaluate outputs of agents and provide feedback to improve agents.

“The third category of LaaJ is that LLM judges are being used as a component in a multi-agent system to evaluate outputs of agents and provide feedback to improve agents.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The grey literature component comprised 16 studies (33%).

“The grey literature component (n= 16, 33%)”

May combine two claims.

Claude models served as judges in 6 studies (12.2%), primarily as cross-validation judges in multi-model designs.

“Claude models served as judges in 6 studies (12.2%), primarily as cross-validation judges in multi-model designs.”

May combine two claims.

Among single-specialty studies, radiology was most common (n = 6, 12.2%), followed by endocrinology/diabetology (n = 4, 8.2%), cardiology (n = 3, 6.1%), and plastic/hand surgery (n = 3, 6.1%).

“Among single-specialty studies, radiology was most common (n= 6, 12.2%), followed by endocrinology/diabetology (n= 4, 8.2%), cardiology (n=3, 6.1%), and plastic/hand surgery (n=3, 6.1%).”

May combine two claims.

Expert involvement was stratified into four levels: extensive (≥20 evaluators, 5 studies, 10.2%), moderate (5-19, 10 studies, 20.4%), minimal (1-4, 21 studies, 42.9%), and none (13 studies, 26.5%).

“We stratified expert involvement into four levels: extensive (≥20 evaluators, 5 studies, 10.2%), moderate (5-19, 10 studies, 20.4%), minimal (1-4, 21 studies, 42.9%), and none (13 studies, 26.5%) (Details see supplementary Table 9).”

May combine two claims.

75.5% of the reviewed studies are in evaluation-only applications, and no study progressed beyond prototype in training or autonomous decision-making pipelines.

“The concentration of 75.5% of studies in evaluation-only applications, with no study progressing beyond prototype in training or autonomous decision-making pipelines”

May combine two claims.

GPT-family models dominated as judges, used in 36 of 49 studies (73.5%), with 27 using GPT as the sole judge family.

“GPT-family models dominated as judges, used in 36 of 49 studies (73.5%), with 27 using GPT as the sole judge family (Supplementary Fig. 4, Supplementary Tables 8).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

LLM judges are used in heterogeneous judge panels, where models from different model families independently evaluate the same output and aggregate their scores.

“1) heterogeneous judge panels, where models from different model families (such as the GPT family from OpenAI or the Claude family from Anthropic) independently evaluate the same output and aggregate their scores (analogous to a multidisciplinary tumor board reaching consensus from diverse specialist perspectives);”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Three studies did not fit neatly into the three primary application domains.

“Three studies did not fit neatly into these categories.”

May combine two claims.

Llama models appeared in 8 studies (16.3%), and Gemini in 4 (8.2%).

“Llama models appeared in 8 studies (16.3%), and Gemini in 4 (8.2%).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

It remains unknown whether LLM judges in healthcare have access to or appropriately incorporate the patient-level context, comorbidities, medication history, and prior interventions that determine whether a clinical recommendation is safe for a specific patient.

“More fundamentally, it remains unknown whether LLM judges in healthcare have access to or appropriately incorporate the patient-level context, comorbidities, medication history, and prior interventions that determine whether a clinical recommendation is safe for a specific patient.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Patient-level context, comorbidities, medication history, and prior interventions determine whether a clinical recommendation is safe for a specific patient.

May combine two claims.

Positional bias was tested in 3 studies (6.1%), self-enhancement in 2 (4.1%), and length/verbosity in 1 (2.0%).

“Positional bias was tested in 3 studies (6.1%), self-enhancement in 2 (4.1%), and length/verbosity in 1 (2.0%).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

After removing 652 duplicates, 11,727 unique citations underwent screening.

“After removing 652 duplicates, 11,727 unique citations underwent screening.”

May combine two claims.

Adaptation methods included prompt engineering (n = 15 studies, 30.6%), few-shot/in-context learning (n = 12, 24.5%), supervised fine-tuning (n = 11, 22.4%), retrieval-augmented generation (n = 8, 16.3%), chain-of-thought (n = 4, 8.2%), LoRA/QLoRA (n = 4, 8.2%), and DPO/RLAIF (n = 3, 6.1%).

“Adaptation methods included prompt engineering (n=15 studies, 30.6%), few-shot/incontext learning (n=12, 24.5%), supervised fine-tuning (n=11, 22.4%), retrievalaugmented generation (n=8, 16.3%), chain-of-thought (n=4, 8.2%), LoRA/QLoRA (n=4, 8.2%), and DPO/RLAIF (n=3, 6.1%) (Supplementary Tables 7).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Patient-Facing & Decision Support comprised 12 of 49 included studies (24.5%).

“Patient-Facing & Decision Support 12 (24.5%)”

The quote only partly states this claim.

Multiple specialties / general medicine was the most common specialty distribution, with 22 of 49 included studies (44.9%).

“Multiple specialties / general medicine: 22 (44.9%)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

There is a complete absence of demographic fairness testing across all 49 studies.

“the complete absence of demographic fairness testing across all 49 studies”

May combine two claims.

Most commonly reported agreement measures: Cohen's κ (13 studies, 26.5%), Pearson/Spearman correlation (11 studies, 22.4%), ICC (4 studies, 8.2%), Kendall's τ (5 studies, 10.2%).

“Most commonly reported agreement measures: Cohen's κ (13 studies, 26.5%), Pearson/Spearman correlation (11 studies, 22.4%), ICC (4 studies, 8.2%), Kendall's τ (5 studies, 10.2%).”

May combine two claims.

Expert involvement took three forms: reference standard creation, direct rating, and post-hoc review.

“Expert involvement took three forms: reference standard creation, where experts generated or annotated gold-standard outputs against which judge scores were compared 23,25 ; direct rating, where experts scored the same outputs as the judge using Likert scales or binary accept/reject judgments to compute agreement 9,25 ; and post-hoc review, where experts assessed a sample of judge outputs to valid”

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [25]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [9]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Cardiology accounted for 3 of 49 included studies (6.1%).

“Cardiology: 3 (6.1%)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Ophthalmology accounted for 2 of 49 included studies (4.1%).

“Ophthalmology: 2 (4.1%)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

The distribution of judge model families is a near-monoculture of GPT-family judges (n = 36, 73.5%).

“the nearmonoculture of GPT-family judges (n = 36, 73.5%)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

No included study quantified error propagation in multi-judge pipelines.

“no included study quantified error propagation in multi-judge pipelines”

May combine two claims.

Expert credentials ranged from board-certified specialists with 10-30 years of experience to graduate students in biomedical fields; 6 studies (12.2%) did not specify validator credentials.

“Expert credentials ranged from board-certified specialists with 10-30 years of experience to graduate students in biomedical fields; 6 studies (12.2%) did not specify validator credentials.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Radiology accounted for 6 of 49 included studies (12.2%).

“Radiology: 6 (12.2%)”

May combine two claims.

Pointwise agreement by task complexity: Structured 0.82-0.93; Semi-structured 0.64-0.79; Complex reasoning 0.47-0.71.

“Structured (documentation, extraction) 0.82-0.93”

• Also stated in: § Additional information · plain

  “Semi-structured (summaries, reports) 0.64-0.79”

• Also stated in: § Additional information · plain

  “Complex reasoning (diagnosis, safety) 0.47-0.71”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

When all judges are drawn from the same model family, inter-judge error correlation (r = 0.6) reduces ensemble error only from 0.15 to 0.114, recovering 24% of the theoretical reliability gain at three times the computational cost; majority voting alone cannot compensate for this correlated failure.

“When all judges are drawn from the same model family inter-judge error correlation (r = 0.6) reduces ensemble error only from 0.15 to 0.114, recovering 24% of the theoretical reliability gain at three times the computational cost; majority voting alone cannot compensate for this correlated failure.”

May combine two claims.

Zero studies addressed FDA classification, regulatory approval pathways, or liability implications.

“Zero studies addressed FDA classification, regulatory approval pathways, or liability implications 68”

• cites [68]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Endocrinology / diabetology accounted for 4 of 49 included studies (8.2%).

“Endocrinology / diabetology: 4 (8.2%)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Other applications comprised 3 of 49 included studies (6.1%).

“Other 3 (6.1%)”

May combine two claims.

For complex reasoning tasks, model-physician agreement barely differed from physician-physician agreement, establishing fundamental performance ceilings.

“For complex reasoning tasks, model-physician agreement barely differed from physician-physician agreement, establishing fundamental performance ceilings.”

May combine two claims.

Pointwise scoring demonstrates high inter-rater agreement (0.82-0.93) with linear computational cost (O(n)).

“Consistent with this alignment, pointwise scoring demonstrates high inter-rater agreement (0.82-0.93) with linear computational cost (O(n)), making it particularly suitable for highthroughput and well-defined clinical evaluation scenarios.”

May combine two claims.

Deployment: Deployed: 1 study (2.0%); Demo/Prototype: 4 studies; Research only: 44 studies.

“Deployment: Deployed: 1 study (2.0%); Demo/Prototype: 4 studies; Research only: 44 studies”

May combine two claims.

No study in our corpus decomposed the variance sources of expert disagreement, a methodological gap that conflates system failure with inherent task difficulty.

“No study in our corpus decomposed these components, a methodological gap that conflates system failure with inherent task difficulty.”

May combine two claims.

Post-training approaches in the reviewed studies included supervised fine-tuning (n=11, 22.4%), parameter-efficient methods such as LoRA/QLoRA (n=4, 8.2%), and preference optimization techniques such as DPO or RLAIF (n=3, 6.1%).

“Fourth, post-training approaches-including supervised fine-tuning (SFT) (n=11, 22.4%), parameter-efficient methods such as LoRA/QLoRA (n=4, 8.2%), and preference optimization techniques such as DPO or RLAIF (n=3, 6.1%)-can further improve task alignment and evaluation performance.”

May combine two claims.

General-purpose judges: 43/49 (87.8%); medically specialized: 6/49 (12.2%).

“General-purpose judges: 43/49 (87.8%); medically specialized: 6/49 (12.2%).”

May combine two claims.

Validation: With ≥20 experts: 5 studies (10.2%); Median validators: 3; Zero human/NA validators: 13 studies.

“Validation: With ≥20 experts: 5 studies (10.2%);Median validators: 3; Zero human/NA validators: 13 studies”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Psychiatry accounted for 2 of 49 included studies (4.1%).

“Psychiatry: 2 (4.1%)”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Only 12.2% of studies employed medically adapted judges.

“only 12.2% of studies employed medically adapted judges”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Plastic / hand surgery accounted for 3 of 49 included studies (6.1%).

“Plastic / hand surgery: 3 (6.1%)”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Current validation approaches test judges one at a time.

“Current validation approaches test judges one at a time.”

May combine two claims.

Paradigm distribution: Pointwise (incl.hybrid): 42 studies (85.7%); Pairwise: 7 studies (14.3%); Agent-based (hybrid): 6 studies (12.2%).

“Paradigm distribution: Pointwise (incl.hybrid): 42 studies (85.7%);Pairwise: 7 studies (14.3%);Agent-based (hybrid): 6 studies (12.2%)”

May combine two claims.

At r = 0.6, ensemble error rises to 0.114, representing only a 20% reduction at three times the computational cost.

“at r = 0.6, ensemble error rises to 0.114, representing only a 20% reduction at three times the computational cost.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Healthcare-specific commercial deployments include John Snow Labs' prior authorization evaluation systems and numerous clinical documentation quality platforms.

“Healthcare-specific commercial deployments include John Snow Labs' prior authorization evaluation systems and numerous clinical documentation quality platforms.”

May combine two claims.

Among the included studies, judge model families were GPT/OpenAI 75.5% (n=37), Claude 14.3% (n=7), Llama 16.3% (n=8), and Gemini 10.2% (n=5).

“(B) Judge model family concentration revealing GPT/OpenAI monoculture risk (75.5%, n=37), with Claude (14.3%, n=7), Llama (16.3%, n=8), and Gemini (10.2%, n=5)”

May combine two claims.

The mutually exclusive evaluation paradigm slices were pointwise only (73.5%), pairwise only (14.3%), and hybrid pointwise+agent (12.2%).

“The chart shows mutually exclusive slices: pointwise only (73.5%), pairwise only (14.3%), and hybrid pointwise+agent (12.2%).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a critical industry focus, with major technology platforms and specialized vendors developing evaluation frameworks.

“LLM-as-a-Judge has emerged as a critical industry focus, with major technology platforms and specialized vendors developing evaluation frameworks:”

May combine two claims.

Among the included studies, deployment readiness was research-only 89.8% (n=44), demo/prototype 8.2% (n=4), and deployed systems 2.0% (n=1).

“(C) Deployment readiness gap between research-only (89.8%, n=44), demo/prototype (8.2%, n=4), and deployed systems (2.0%, n=1)”

May combine two claims.

GPT-family models dominate across all clinical task categories, with the highest concentration in benchmarking tasks (18 studies).

“GPT-family models dominate across all task categories, with the highest concentration in benchmarking tasks (18 studies).”

May combine two claims.

Complex reasoning tasks show the widest spread in agreement scores, with some systems falling below the human agreement ceiling.

“Complex reasoning tasks show the widest spread in agreement scores, with some systems falling below the human agreement ceiling.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Human inter-rater reliability has an upper bound of approximately 0.7.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The task complexity categories (Structured, Semi-Structured, Complex Reasoning) are valid and distinct for classifying healthcare LaaJ tasks.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Pairwise comparison was used in 7 included studies (14.3%).

“pairwise comparison in 7 (14.3%)”

May combine two claims.

Distribution across application tiers was Tier 1 (Evaluation & Benchmarking) 37 studies (75.5%), Tier 2 (Reinforcement Learning) 3 studies (6.1%), and Tier 3 (Multi-Agent Systems) 9 studies (18.4%).

“Tier 1 (Evaluation & Benchmarking, 37 studies, 75.5%),Tier 2 (Reinforcement Learning, 3 studies, 6.1%), and Tier 3 (Multi-Agent Systems, 9 studies, 18.4%).”

May combine two claims.

Critical-risk dimensions-demographic (race, gender, SES), severity calibration, and temporal stability-had 0% testing rates.

“Critical-risk dimensions-demographic (race, gender, SES), severity calibration, and temporal stability,had 0% testing rates.”

May combine two claims.

Distribution of expert validators per study was 0 experts/AI only (13 studies, 26.5%), 1-4 experts (21 studies, 42.9%), 5-19 experts (10 studies, 20.4%), and 20+ experts (5 studies, 10.2%).

“0 experts/AI only (13 studies, 26.5%), 1-4 experts (21 studies, 42.9%), 5-19 experts (10 studies, 20.4%), and 20+ experts (5 studies, 10.2%).”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Six hybrid studies employed both pointwise and agent-based approaches.

“categories overlap as 6 hybrid studies employed both pointwise and agent-based approaches.”

May combine two claims.

LaaJ introduces systematic evaluation risks, including positional bias, verbosity bias, self-preference bias, calibration errors, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation.

“However, LaaJ introduces systematic evaluation risks, including positional bias 17 , verbosity bias 18 , self-preference bias 19 , calibration errors 20 , and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation 21,22 .”

• cites [17]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [18]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [19]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Together, these frameworks necessitate continuous, scalable monitoring systems.

“Together, these frameworks necessitate continuous, scalable monitoring systems.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Scalable evaluation of LLM results in clinical text has become critical.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The NLP and computational linguistics communities have historically developed extensive quantitative metrics such as BLEU, ROUGE, and perplexity scores for assessing traditional NLP models.

“The NLP and computational linguistics communities have historically developed extensive quantitative metrics, such as Bilingual Evaluation Understudy (BLEU) 5 , Recall-Oriented Understudy for Gisting Evaluation (ROUGE) 6 , and perplexity scores, for assessing traditional NLP models.”

• cites [5]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [6]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Lee et al.'s review cataloged evaluation dimensions, sample sizes, and statistical approaches but focused exclusively on human evaluation methodologies and did not examine automated evaluation by LLM judges.

“Their review cataloged evaluation dimensions, sample sizes, and statistical approaches but focused exclusively on human evaluation methodologies, how physicians and other experts assess LLM outputs, and did not examine automated evaluation by LLM judges.”

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

LLMs are rapidly transforming healthcare by supporting clinical documentation, triage, question answering, and enabling autonomous medical agents capable of orchestrating multiple tools.

“Large language models (LLMs), representing the state-of-the-art in natural language processing (NLP), are rapidly transforming healthcare by supporting clinical documentation 1 , triage 2 , question answering 3 , and increasingly, enabling autonomous medical agents 4 capable of orchestrating multiple tools.”

• cites [1]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [2]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [3]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

We conducted a PRISMA-ScR scoping review of six databases (January 2020-January 2026), screening 11,727 studies and including 49 for this article.

“We conducted a PRISMA-ScR scoping review of six databases (January 2020-January 2026), screening 11,727 studies and including 49 for this article.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Scalable evaluation of LLM results in clinical text has become critical.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: LLM-as-a-Judge offers an alternative to costly expert review.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Healthcare adoption of LaaJ raises safety and bias concerns.

May combine two claims.

Shool et al. systematically reviewed 761 studies evaluating LLMs in clinical medicine, characterizing performance benchmarks, clinical tasks, and outcome metrics.

“Similarly, Shool et al. 24 systematically reviewed 761 studies evaluating LLMs in clinical medicine, characterizing performance benchmarks, clinical tasks, and outcome metrics.”

• cites [24]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The WHO explicitly warns against hallucination risks and automation bias.

“the WHO explicitly warns against hallucination risks and automation bias 15”

• cites [15]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

Rigorous evaluation of LLMs in healthcare settings has become essential because LLMs may directly influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

“Because LLMs may directly influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes, rigorous evaluation of LLMs in healthcare settings has become essential.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: LLMs may directly influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

MedJUDGE provides the first deployment-stage evaluation guidance for healthcare LaaJ systems.

“providing the first deployment-stage evaluation guidance for healthcare LaaJ systems”

May combine two claims.

Minimal human oversight, absent bias testing, and model monoculture constitute a systemic governance failure in which current validation practices cannot detect errors shared between judge and evaluated system.

“minimal human oversight, absent bias testing, and model monoculture constitute a systemic governance failure in which current validation practices cannot detect errors shared between judge and evaluated system”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Healthcare adoption of LaaJ raises safety and bias concerns.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

These failures are the most likely to cause patient harm.

“the failures most likely to cause patient harm”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Healthcare adoption of LaaJ raises safety and bias concerns.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

In general domains, LaaJ has enabled automated benchmarking with 70-90% human agreement.

“In general domains, LaaJ has enabled automated benchmarking with 70-90% human agreement.”

• cites [16]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Lee et al. conducted a scoping review of evaluation methods for medical LLMs, analyzing 142 full-text articles across clinical specialties.

“Lee et al 23 conducted a scoping review of evaluation methods for medical LLMs, analyzing 142 full-text articles across clinical specialties.”

• cites [23]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Tam et al. reviewed 142 studies to develop the QUEST framework for human evaluation of healthcare LLMs, proposing standardized dimensions and practical guidance.

“Tam et al. 25 reviewed 142 studies to develop the QUEST framework for human evaluation of healthcare LLMs, proposing standardized dimensions (Quality of Information, Understanding and Reasoning, Expression Style and Persona, Safety and Harm, and Trust and Confidence) and practical guidance for evaluator recruitment and statistical analysis.”

• cites [25]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Two independent reviewers screened titles and abstracts.

“Two independent reviewers (TO and YR) screened titles and abstracts”

• Also stated in: § Study selection · plain

  “Two independent reviewers (TO, YR) screened titles and abstracts to identify papers eligible for full-text review.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) achieves alignment similar to RLHF/RLAIF through a simplified training procedure that eliminates the explicit reward model.

“A related technique, Direct Preference Optimization (DPO) 38 , achieves similar alignment through a simplified training procedure that eliminates the explicit reward model.”

• cites [38]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

QUEST provides essential infrastructure for human evaluation but explicitly acknowledges the limitations of relying solely on human reviewers at scale and does not address the emerging practice of substituting or augmenting human judges with LLM-based evaluators.

“While QUEST provides essential infrastructure for human evaluation, it explicitly acknowledges the limitations of relying solely on human reviewers at scale and does not address the emerging practice of substituting or augmenting human judges with LLM-based evaluators.”

• cites [25]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The concentration of 75.5% of studies in evaluation-only applications, with no study progressing beyond prototype in training or autonomous decision-making pipelines, reflects not technical immaturity but the absence of any framework specifying what safe progression would require.

“The concentration of 75.5% of studies in evaluation-only applications, with no study progressing beyond prototype in training or autonomous decision-making pipelines, reflects not technical immaturity, but the absence of any framework specifying what safe progression would require.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: A framework specifying what safe progression would require is necessary for studies to progress beyond prototype in training or autonomous decision-making pipelines.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The grey literature component reflects the field's early stage, with much work circulating as preprints or recent conference presentations not yet indexed in major electronic databases.

“The grey literature component (n= 16, 33%) reflects the field's early stage, with much work circulating as preprints or recent conference presentations not yet indexed in major electronic databases.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The 49 included articles are representative of the emerging landscape of LaaJ applications in healthcare.

May combine two claims.

Using the same model family as both generator and judge creates a specific problem: both systems share the same training data and therefore the same knowledge gaps.

“Using the same model family as both generator and judge creates a specific problem: both systems share the same training data and therefore the same knowledge gaps.”

May combine two claims.

Only 8.2% of studies adopted G-EVAL despite documented reliability gains in general-domain evaluations (Spearman ρ up to 0.51), reflecting the broader gap between general-domain NLP methodology and clinical LaaJ practice.

“Only 8.2% of studies adopted this framework despite documented reliability gains in general-domain evaluations (Spearman ρ up to 0.51), reflecting the broader gap between general-domain NLP methodology and clinical LaaJ practice.”

May combine two claims.

Shool et al.'s analysis concentrated on what was being evaluated rather than who or what was performing the evaluation, and their corpus contained no instances of LLM-as-a-Judge.

“Their analysis concentrated on what was being evaluated (LLM clinical performance) rather than who or what was performing the evaluation, and their corpus contained no instances of LLM-as-a-Judge.”

• cites [24]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

Because LaaJ systems are themselves LLM models, their validity cannot be assumed.

“Because LaaJ systems are themselves LLM models, their validity cannot be assumed.”

May combine two claims.

Gu et al. and Li et al. have produced comprehensive surveys of LaaJ methodology, documenting evaluation paradigms, known biases, and mitigation strategies.

“In the nonmedical domain, Gu et al. 16 and Li et al. 26 have produced comprehensive surveys of LaaJ methodology, documenting evaluation paradigms, known biases -including positional bias (scores shifting based on answer order), verbosity bias (longer responses rated higher regardless of quality), and self-preference bias (a model favoring outputs from its own family) -and mitigation strategies.”

• cites [16]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [26]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

A judge may score consistently while exhibiting systematic demographic bias, miscalibration across clinical severity levels, or preferential scoring of outputs from models within the same family.

“A judge may score consistently while exhibiting systematic demographic bias, miscalibration across clinical severity levels, or preferential scoring of outputs from models within the same family.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

MedJUDGE represents empirically grounded propositions derived from observed practical gaps in this review study.

“MedJUDGE thus represents empirically grounded propositions derived from observed practical gaps in this review study.”

May combine two claims.

The recursive trust problem identifies a fundamental epistemic challenge in LaaJ validation: validating an LLM judge against human experts assumes those experts constitute an adequate gold standard, and this assumption does not hold.

“The recursive trust problem identifies a fundamental epistemic challenge in LaaJ validation: validating an LLM judge against human experts assumes those experts constitute an adequate gold standard.This assumption does not hold.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

For Tier B and Tier C applications, multi-family judge panels reduce the risk of correlated errors across judges.

“For Tier B and Tier C applications, we further recommend the use of multi-family judge panels to reduce the risk of correlated errors across judges.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Consistency and accuracy are not the same thing.

“Consistency and accuracy are not the same thing.”

May combine two claims.

In healthcare pipelines, judges do not operate alone; their errors combine, amplify, and pass through components that are never audited as judges at all.

“In healthcare pipelines, however, judges do not operate alone, their errors combine, amplify, and pass through components that are never audited as judges at all.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Healthcare applications adopting MedJUDGE are classified into one of three clinical risk tiers as an entry point.

“Healthcare applications adopting MedJUDGE are classified into one of three clinical risk tiers as an entry point”

May combine two claims.

The reliance on pointwise scoring regardless of task characteristics limits evaluation quality and likely contributes to greater variability in agreement observed for complex reasoning tasks (0.47-0.71).

“Notably, despite these paradigm-task alignment considerations, 85.7% of studies in our review relied on pointwise scoring regardless of task characteristics, which limit evaluation quality and likely contributes to the greater variability in agreement observed for complex reasoning tasks (0.47-0.71), as shown in Supplementary Tables 1 and 5”

May combine two claims.

RAG can improve temporal validity and reduce reliance on potentially outdated parametric knowledge embedded in pretrained models.

“By dynamically incorporating up-to-date clinical guidelines and institutional policies at inference time, RAG can improve temporal validity and reduce reliance on potentially outdated parametric knowledge embedded in pretrained models.”

May combine two claims.

MedHELM provides predeployment benchmarking and QUEST provides human evaluation design, but neither covers continuous validation during live clinical deployment, nor accounts for bias testing, or quantifying error propagation in the frameworks.

“For example, MedHELM provides predeployment benchmarking, 44 and QUEST provides human evaluation design 25 , but neither covers continuous validation during live clinical deployment, nor accounts for bias testing, or quantifying error propagation in the frameworks.”

• cites [44]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites [25]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The lack of prompt template reporting represents a major reproducibility gap and highlights prompt specification as a primary methodological vulnerability in the current literature.

“Notably, 40% of studies did not report their prompt templates, representing a major reproducibility gap and highlighting prompt specification as a primary methodological vulnerability in the current literature.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Without bias testing, there is no way to know whether a judge's consistent scores reflect genuine quality or a consistent, undetected error.

“Without bias testing, there is no way to know whether a judge's consistent scores reflect genuine quality or a consistent, undetected error.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Consistency and accuracy are not the same thing.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

The sponsors had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.

“The sponsors had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The self-preference amplification loop is particularly acute in Category 2 (reinforcement learning) applications where judges serve as reward models.

“The self-preference amplification loop is particularly acute in Category 2 (reinforcement learning) applications where judges serve as reward models.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

MedJUDGE is a three-pillar deployment framework for healthcare LLM-as-a-Judge systems, organized around Validity, Safety, and Accountability, with error propagation analysis as a cross-cutting concern.

“A three-pillar deployment framework for healthcare LLM-as-a-Judge systems, organized around Validity (Stages 1-3), Safety (Stages 4-6), and Accountability (Stages 7-9), with error propagation analysis as a cross-cutting concern.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

General-domain evidence shows smaller fine-tuned models can match larger general-purpose ones.

“general-domain evidence that smaller fine-tuned models can match larger general-purpose ones 92”

• cites [92]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

Reference standard creation represents the strongest form of validation, as it provides an independent anchor for judge performance; direct rating and post-hoc review are weaker because they conflate judge reliability with task difficulty.

“Reference standard creation represents the strongest form of validation, as it provides an independent anchor for judge performance; direct rating and post-hoc review are weaker because they conflate judge reliability with task difficulty.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Incorporating diverse personas can improve the robustness, reliability, and generalizability of evaluation results by reducing perspective bias.

“Our review suggests that incorporating diverse personas can improve the robustness, reliability, and generalizability of evaluation results by reducing perspective bias.”

May combine two claims.

The review identified several gaps in using LaaJ for healthcare applications, including inadequate validation, absent bias testing, unquantified error propagation, and model monoculture.

“In this review study, we have identified several gaps in using LaaJ for healthcare applications, including, but not limited to, inadequate validation, absent bias testing, unquantified error propagation, and model monoculture.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

Two reviewers independently assessed full-text articles for final eligibility.

“Two reviewers (TO, CL) independently assessed full-text articles for final eligibility.”

May combine two claims.

Documented adversarial attack success rates of 90.8-98.9% against general LLM judges suggest that healthcare LaaJ systems are likely vulnerable, though clinical-context-specific testing remains absent from the literature.

“Documented adversarial attack success rates of 90.8-98.9%65 against general LLM judges suggest that healthcare LaaJ systems are likely vulnerable, though clinical-context-specific testing remains absent from the literature.”

• cites [65]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

The low rate of production deployment observed in our review (2.0%, with an additional 8.2% reaching the prototype or proof-of-concept stage) should not be interpreted as a failure to translate technical advances into practice; rather, it reflects appropriate institutional caution given the validation gaps identified in the current literature.

“The low rate of production deployment observed in our review (2.0%, with an additional 8.2% reaching the prototype or proof-of-concept stage) should not be interpreted as a failure to translate technical advances into practice.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

The risk tiers map to established clinical governance structures: Tier A corresponds to IRB-exempt quality improvement; Tier B aligns with institutional clinical quality assurance; Tier C corresponds to clinical decision support tools potentially falling under FDA SaMD guidance.

“These risk tiers map to established clinical governance structures: Tier A corresponds to IRB-exempt quality improvement; Tier B aligns with institutional clinical quality assurance; Tier C corresponds to clinical decision support tools potentially falling under FDA SaMD guidance.”

May combine two claims.

Tier C systems may fall within the scope of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and may require regulatory oversight consistent with FDA guidance.

“these systems may fall within the scope of Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and may require regulatory oversight consistent with FDA guidance”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: LaaJ outputs in Tier C applications may directly inform or influence patient care decisions and errors could result in patient harm if not properly mitigated.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based). May combine two claims.

Models developed within the same family may inherit similar blind spots, stylistic preferences, and alignment tendencies, thereby increasing the risk that shared biases will inflate evaluation agreement or favor outputs generated by related systems.

“This distinction is important because models developed within the same family may inherit similar blind spots, stylistic preferences, and alignment tendencies, thereby increasing the risk that shared biases will inflate evaluation agreement or favor outputs generated by related systems.”

Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

Only 5% of LLM studies use real patient data.

“only 5% of LLM studies use real patient data”

• cites [44]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

Conflicts were resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer available for arbitration.

“Conflicts were resolved through discussion, with a third reviewer (CL) available for arbitration.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

Following the Validity pillar of the MedJUDGE framework, healthcare applications will have improved reliability, interpretability, and reproducibility of LaaJ.

“Following the Validity pillar of the MedJUDGE framework, healthcare applications will have improved reliability, interpretability, and reproducibility of LaaJ.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Applying MedJUDGE requirements at the appropriate rigor level ensures continued safe and compliant use.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The three pillars (Validity, Safety, Accountability) are sufficient to ensure methodological rigor, clinical safety, and operational accountability throughout the LaaJ lifecycle.

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The review followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines.

“following the PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines 27”

• cites [27]Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

May combine two claims.

The median expert count of 3 highlights limited human oversight in current LaaJ validation practices.

“The median expert count is 3, highlighting the limited human oversight in current LaaJ validation practices.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

Different clinical reasoning modes may require different evaluation rubrics, different expert validator compositions, and potentially different judge architectures.

“as each may require different evaluation rubrics, different expert validator compositions, and potentially different judge architectures.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

The exponential growth reflects the field's nascent but accelerating adoption.

“The exponential growth reflects the field's nascent but accelerating adoption.”

May combine two claims.

A self-preference feedback cycle can emerge when the same model family generates clinical content and evaluates it, or when judges from similar training distributions are used.

“When the same model family generates clinical content and evaluates it, or when judges from similar training distributions are used, the following feedback cycle can emerge:”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

The industry ecosystem suggests practical LaaJ adoption substantially exceeds peer-reviewed literature.

“This industry ecosystem suggests practical LaaJ adoption substantially exceeds peer-reviewed literature.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

An LLM judge that reliably evaluates whether a diagnosis is supported by available evidence may fail entirely when asked to evaluate whether the timing of a therapeutic intervention is appropriate or whether a care plan adequately coordinates across specialties.

“An LLM judge that reliably evaluates whether a diagnosis is supported by available evidence may fail entirely when asked to evaluate whether the timing of a therapeutic intervention is appropriate or whether a care plan adequately coordinates across specialties.”

Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

Healthcare-specific implementations rarely disclose validation rigor, expert agreement metrics, bias testing results, or robustness assessments.

“However, healthcare-specific implementations rarely disclose validation rigor, expert agreement metrics, bias testing results, or robustness assessments.”