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 accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Generative Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare: Automation Bias, Deskilling, and Cognitive Implications – A Systematic Review (2026) · cites this paper as [21]
Citations
Cites
Yokoi, R., Eguchi, Y., Fujita, T., & Nakayachi, K. (2021) · International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2020.1861763 · Cited by 122
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Al-Anezi, F. M. (2026) · Journal of Healthcare Leadership · doi:10.2147/jhl.s590498 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Sallam, M., Khalil, R., & Sallam, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Jordan (JO)
- Venue
- Mesopotamian Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Publisher
- map.researchcommons.org
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- 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