Cited by 15Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareArtificial Intelligence Applications

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Benchmarking Generative AI: A Call for Establishing a Comprehensive Framework and a Generative AIQ Test

Open access
Sallam, Malik, Khalil, Roaa, Sallam, Mohammed·2024·Mesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare

Abstract

The introduction and rapid evolution of generative artificial intelligence (genAI) models necessitates a refined understanding for the concept of “intelligence”. The genAI tools are known for its capability to produce complex, creative, and contextually relevant output. Nevertheless, the deployment of genAI models in healthcare should be accompanied appropriate and rigorous performance evaluation tools. In this rapid communication, we emphasizes the urgent need to develop a “Generative AIQ Test” as a novel tailored tool for comprehensive benchmarking of genAI models against multiple human-like intelligence attributes. A preliminary framework is proposed in this communication. This framework incorporates miscellaneous performance metrics including accuracy, diversity, novelty, and consistency. These metrics were considered critical in the evaluation of genAI models that might be utilized to generate diagnostic recommendations, treatment plans, and patient interaction suggestions. This communication also highlights the importance of orchestrated collaboration to construct robust and well-annotated benchmarking datasets to capture the complexity of diverse medical scenarios and patient demographics. This communication suggests an approach aiming to ensure that genAI models are effective, equitable, and transparent. To maximize the potential of genAI models in healthcare, it is important to establish rigorous, dynamic standards for its benchmarking. Consequently, this approach can help to improve clinical decision-making with enhancement in patient care, which will enhance the reliability of genAI applications in healthcare.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.58496/mjaih/2024/010

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Existing scholarly literature on GenAI's application in healthcare often focuses almost exclusively on technical performance indicators such as accuracy rates, time efficiency, and comparative error reduction against human benchmarks.

    “Existing scholarly literature17–22 on GenAI’s application in healthcare often focuses almost exclusively on technical performance indicators such as accuracy rates, time efficiency, and comparative error reduction against human benchmarks.”

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sallam, M., Khalil, R., & Sallam, M.
Affiliations
University of Jordan (JO)
Venue
Mesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
Published
2024-07-02
Volume
2024
Pages
69-75
ISSN
3005-365X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4400395435
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2
FWCI
1.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Mesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Artificial Intelligence Applications
Keywords
generative AI, benchmarking, performance indicators, artificial intelligence in healthcare, benchmark dataset, annotated dataset, clinical decision support, diagnostic recommendations, treatment planning, patient interaction, concept of intelligence

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