ArticlePloS one2026
Human-anchored longitudinal comparison of generative AI with a bias-calibrated LLM-as-judge.
Article in PloS one, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Service LLMs evolve without public changelogs, complicating reproducible evaluation. We present a preregistered human-anchored longitudinal study that tracks three major model families over ten weekly waves using a fixed prompt bank (N = 240) across six domains. Blinded human raters provided correctness judgments, and a bias-calibrated LLM-as-judge produced secondary pairwise preferences corrected weekly via a Bradley-Terry model. Mixed-effects modeling and change-point detection (PELT with MBIC penalty) identified significant service drift patterns. Results show divergent stability trajectories among models: one stable, one improving, and one degrading mid-study. Judge calibration increased agreement with humans (τ = 0.59-0.68) while reducing volatility. Safety metrics co-varied with drift events, suggesting behavioral shifts rather than confirmed causal changes. All data, prompts, rubrics, and parameter configurations are provided in supporting files S1-S6.
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.