ArticleJAMIA open2025
Reproducible generative artificial intelligence evaluation for health care: a clinician-in-the-loop approach.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Large language models in healthcare: applications, evaluation frameworks, and governance pathways - a scoping review and multidimensional framework.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Readiness in Emergency Medicine: Expert Consensus Opinion for Preparing the Workforce.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Disparate language and model effects on AI-based translation and recognition of genetic conditions.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing five generative AI chatbots' answers to LLM-generated clinical questions with medical information scientists' evidence summaries.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026Article
- Operating characteristics of agreement metrics in AI-based scoring: a Monte Carlo simulation.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Comparing Five Generative AI Chatbots' Answers to LLM-Generated Clinical Questions with Medical Information Scientists' Evidence Summaries.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Reproducible generative artificial intelligence evaluation for health care: a clinician-in-the-loop approach.JAMIA open · 2025Article
- A two-stage evaluation of large language models for guideline-based Q&A and draft rehabilitation planning in stroke care.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.