ArticleHealth information science and systems2026
Fine-grained evaluation of a domain-specific Q&A dataset to support trustworthy medical language models.
Article in Health information science and systems, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effective use of Large Language Models (LLMs) for generating coherent and informative content in specialized domains has largely been driven by the development of robust evaluation strategies. Based on this assumption, we introduce HemoQAL, a domain-specific question-and-answer (Q&A) dataset on hemophilia, derived from recent scientific publications and clinical guidelines. Our main contribution lies in a fine-grained evaluation of the quality of LLM-generated content. First, we carried out a human evaluation in which medical experts assessed the factual accuracy and educational value of the generated Q&A pairs. Second, we conducted a semantic similarity analysis to quantitatively evaluate the alignment between each Q&A pair and its original source material. These lightweight, scalable semantic metrics offer an efficient alternative to more resource-intensive human or LLM-based evaluation pipelines. Our findings show that integrating expert review with semantic similarity measures improves the reliability and trustworthiness of LLM-generated medical content, contributing to the development of dependable AI tools in health informatics.
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.