ArticlePLOS digital health2026
Moving beyond the benchmarks: Five foundational principles for meaningful AI evaluation in healthcare.
Article in PLOS digital health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Proposed Context-of-Use Evaluation Framework for Medication Management Tasks Completed by Generative Artificial Intelligence.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Rapid integration of Large Language Models (LLMs) into healthcare has exposed a critical disconnect between technical performance and clinical value. While state-of-the-art models achieve impressive scores on standardized medical examinations, their real-world impact remains limited, with few models progressing to successful clinical integration. This disconnect persists, in part, due to a proliferation of evaluation practices that prioritize static, decontextualized benchmarks. To help address this gap, we propose five foundational principles to guide contextually appropriate evaluations of healthcare AI: Local (grounded in specific deployment contexts), Task-specific (aligned with intended clinical use), Agile (continuously adaptive), Reflective (acknowledging limitations and inherent value-sensitivity), and Community-partnered (centering affected voices). We argue that emphasis on these principles can help shift evaluation practice towards assessment of artificial intelligence. This reorientation is essential for developing healthcare AI that not only performs well technically, but also can meaningfully improve patient care, serve communities for defined purposes, and mitigate (rather than exacerbate) health disparities.
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.