Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42403565›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet. Obstetrics, gynaecology, & women's health2025

Measuring large language model uncertainty in women's health using semantic entropy and perplexity: a comparative study.

Jahan C Penny-Dimri, Magdalena Bachmann, William R Cooke, Sam Mathewlynn, Samuel Dockree, John Tolladay, Jannik Kossen, Lin Li, Yarin Gal, Gabriel Davis Jones

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet. Obstetrics, gynaecology, & women's health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Artificial intelligence for personalized multiple micronutrient supplementation in maternal health.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Review
  3. 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

10 authors.

Jahan C Penny-DimriOxford Digital Health Labs, Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Magdalena BachmannNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
William R CookeOxford Digital Health Labs, Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Sam MathewlynnNuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Samuel DockreeOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
John TolladayOxford Digital Health Labs, Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Jannik KossenOATML, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Lin LiOATML, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Yarin GalOATML, Department of Computer Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Gabriel Davis JonesOxford Digital Health Labs, Nuffield Department of Women's and Reproductive Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Large language models (LLMs) offer considerable potential to support clinical decision making. However, the use of LLMs in medicine is limited by the risk of generating fluent but incorrect outputs (hallucinations) that compromise patient safety. Traditional approaches to detecting when LLMs are uncertain fail to detect meaning-level inconsistencies. Semantic entropy has been proposed as a novel uncertainty metric that quantifies variation in meaning across generated responses; however, the metric's utility in clinical applications remains untested. We aimed to compare the ability of semantic entropy with that of perplexity to detect inaccuracies in LLM-generated answers to questions concerning obstetrics and gynaecology. Methods: We assessed semantic entropy as a tool for quantifying uncertainty in LLM-generated content using a validated dataset of question-answer pairs derived from the UK Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists membership (MRCOG) examinations. Responses were generated using GPT-4o (OpenAI [San Francisco, CA, USA]) and entered into the LLM ten times per item. Semantic entropy was computed from the diversity of meaning-based response clusters and compared against perplexity using area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) and accuracy (defined as the proportion of model-generated responses classified as correct). Clinical correctness was independently adjudicated by certified obstetricians and gynaecologists for a subset of 105 questions. Findings: Of 1824 MRCOG question-answer pairs, we excluded 98 questions that were incompatible with short-answer formatting and 56 that required interpretation of images or tables. The final analysis included 1670 questions. Semantic entropy showed superior discrimination of incorrect responses compared with perplexity (AUROC 0·76 [95% CI 0·75-0·78 Interpretation: Semantic entropy offers a robust and scalable method to identify uncertain or potentially misleading outputs from LLMs. Semantic entropy could support safer artificial intelligence-assisted clinical decision making by flagging unreliable responses and enabling human oversight. These findings support semantic entropy as a practical safeguard for the deployment of LLMs in clinical environments and establish a methodological framework for future uncertainty estimation in high-risk medical domains. Funding: UK Medical Research Council.

Identifiers

PMID42403565
PMCPMC13328330

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.