Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40524837›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2025

Reproducible generative artificial intelligence evaluation for health care: a clinician-in-the-loop approach.

Leah Livingston, Amber Featherstone-Uwague, Amanda Barry, Kenneth Barretto, Tara Morey, Drahomira Herrmannova, Venkatesh Avula

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Disparate language and model effects on AI-based translation and recognition of genetic conditions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Leah LivingstonElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.
Amber Featherstone-UwagueElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.
Amanda BarryElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.
Kenneth BarrettoElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.
Tara MoreyElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.
Drahomira HerrmannovaElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.
Venkatesh AvulaElsevier, Health Markets, Philadelphia, PA 19103, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: To develop and apply a reproducible methodology for evaluating generative artificial intelligence (AI) powered systems in health care, addressing the gap between theoretical evaluation frameworks and practical implementation guidance. Materials and Methods: A 5-dimension evaluation framework was developed to assess query comprehension and response helpfulness, correctness, completeness, and potential clinical harm. The framework was applied to evaluate ClinicalKey AI using queries drawn from user logs, a benchmark dataset, and subject matter expert curated queries. Forty-one board-certified physicians and pharmacists were recruited to independently evaluate query-response pairs. An agreement protocol using the mode and modified Delphi method resolved disagreements in evaluation scores. Results: Of 633 queries, 614 (96.99%) produced evaluable responses, with subject matter experts completing evaluations of 426 query-response pairs. Results demonstrated high rates of response correctness (95.5%) and query comprehension (98.6%), with 94.4% of responses rated as helpful. Two responses (0.47%) received scores indicating potential clinical harm. Pairwise consensus occurred in 60.6% of evaluations, with remaining cases requiring third tie-breaker review. Discussion: The framework demonstrated effectiveness in quantifying performance through comprehensive evaluation dimensions and structured scoring resolution methods. Key strengths included representative query sampling, standardized rating scales, and robust subject matter expert agreement protocols. Challenges emerged in managing subjective assessments of open-ended responses and achieving consensus on potential harm classification. Conclusion: This framework offers a reproducible methodology for evaluating health-care generative AI systems, establishing foundational processes that can inform future efforts while supporting the implementation of generative AI applications in clinical settings.

Indexed as

artificial intelligenceevaluationsgenerative AIlarge language modelssubject matter experts

Identifiers

PMID40524837
PMCPMC12169418

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.