ArticleNPJ digital medicine2025
Expert of Experts Verification and Alignment (EVAL) Framework for Large Language Models Safety in Gastroenterology.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical large language model centered on electronic medical records.NPJ digital medicine · 2026Article
- PHENO-RAG: An artificial intelligence tool for guideline-informed management decisions in hepatocellular carcinoma.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2026Article
- From Guidelines to Real-Time Conversation: Expert-Validated Retrieval-Augmented and Fine-Tuned GPT-4 for Hepatitis C Management.Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver · 2025Article
- Guideline-enhanced large language models outperform physician-test takers on EASL Campus quizzes multiple choice questions.JHEP reports : innovation in hepatology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
19 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models generate plausible text responses to medical questions, but inaccurate responses pose significant risks in medical decision-making. Grading LLM outputs to determine the best model or answer is time-consuming and impractical in clinical settings; therefore, we introduce EVAL (Expert-of-Experts Verification and Alignment) to streamline this process and enhance LLM safety for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We evaluated OpenAI's GPT-3.5/4/4o/o1-preview, Anthropic's Claude-3-Opus, Meta's LLaMA-2 (7B/13B/70B), and Mistral AI's Mixtral (7B) across 27 configurations, including zero-shot baseline, retrieval-augmented generation, and supervised fine-tuning. EVAL uses similarity-based ranking and a reward model trained on human-graded responses for rejection sampling. Among the employed similarity metrics, Fine-Tuned ColBERT achieved the highest alignment with human performance across three separate datasets (ρ = 0.81-0.91). The reward model replicated human grading with 87.9% of cases across temperature settings and significantly improved accuracy through rejection sampling by 8.36% overall. EVAL offers scalable potential to assess accuracy for high-stakes medical decision-making.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.