Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Medicine (Last 60 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 12 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Ranking. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Common metric signal: accuracy. Use this page to compare protocol setup, judge behavior, and labeling design decisions before running new eval experiments. Newest paper in this set is from Feb 23, 2026.

Papers: 12 Last published: Feb 23, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
Automatic MetricsMedicineLast 60d

Researcher Quick Triage

This hub is best used for protocol triage and replication planning from abstract-level evidence. Quality band: Developing .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

12 / 12 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

0

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 0 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 0 papers support judge-vs-human agreement analysis.
  • 2 papers report explicit quality controls (calibration/adjudication/IAA).

Primary action: Use this page for scouting only; collect additional papers before attempting replication-critical comparisons.

Why This Matters (Expanded)

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 58.3% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • long-horizon tasks appears in 16.7% of papers, indicating agentic evaluation demand.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (8.3% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly ranking annotation; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 50% of hub papers (6/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 16.7% of hub papers (2/12); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (58.3% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (16.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (0% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is strong (58.3% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (25% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (58.3% of papers).
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 33.3% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 16.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (0% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).
  • LLM-as-judge appears without enough inter-annotator agreement reporting.

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Pair this hub with a human_eval-heavy hub to validate judge-model calibration.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and agreement.
  • Add inter-annotator agreement checks when reproducing these protocols.
Recommended Queries (Expanded)

Recommended Queries

Start Here (Best First 6)

Ranked for protocol completeness (human signal, benchmark + metric anchors, quality controls, and judge/human overlap).

Protocol Matrix (Top 12)

Use this to quickly compare protocol ingredients instead of scanning long prose.

Paper HF Signal Eval Modes Benchmarks Metrics QC
An artificial intelligence framework for end-to-end rare disease phenotyping from clinical notes using large language models

Feb 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 , Precision Gold Questions
Modeling Expert AI Diagnostic Alignment via Immutable Inference Snapshots

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Agreement Adjudication
Multi-Objective Alignment of Language Models for Personalized Psychotherapy

Feb 17, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Agreement , Cost Not Reported
CUICurate: A GraphRAG-based Framework for Automated Clinical Concept Curation for NLP applications

Feb 20, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Precision , Recall Not Reported
MEDSYN: Benchmarking Multi-EviDence SYNthesis in Complex Clinical Cases for Multimodal Large Language Models

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

Feb 25, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
What Makes a Good Doctor Response? An Analysis on a Romanian Telemedicine Platform

Feb 19, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
Continuous Telemonitoring of Heart Failure using Personalised Speech Dynamics

Feb 23, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Cost Not Reported
AgenticRAGTracer: A Hop-Aware Benchmark for Diagnosing Multi-Step Retrieval Reasoning in Agentic RAG

Feb 22, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing

Feb 15, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Bleu Not Reported
Assessing Large Language Models for Medical QA: Zero-Shot and LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation

Feb 16, 2026

No
Not Reported
Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Bleu , Rouge Not Reported
INSURE-Dial: A Phase-Aware Conversational Dataset & Benchmark for Compliance Verification and Phase Detection

Jan 28, 2026

No
Not Reported
Automatic Metrics Not Reported Latency Not Reported

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

Fast side-by-side comparison for the highest-ranked papers in this hub.

Signal An artificial intelligence framework for end-to-end… Modeling Expert AI Diagnostic Alignment via Immutab… Multi-Objective Alignment of Language Models for Pe…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationExpert VerificationPairwise Preference, Expert Verification
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Metrics F1, PrecisionAgreementAgreement, Cost
Quality Controls Gold QuestionsAdjudicationNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit RankingUnknownRanking
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

This section is intentionally expanded only when needed; use “Start Here” above for a faster pass.

Suggested Reading Order

  1. An artificial intelligence framework for end-to-end rare disease phenotyping from clinical notes using large language models

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Phenotyping is fundamental to rare disease diagnosis, but manual curation.

  2. Modeling Expert AI Diagnostic Alignment via Immutable Inference Snapshots

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: agreement. Abstract: Human-in-the-loop validation is essential in safety-critical clinical AI,.

  3. MEDSYN: Benchmarking Multi-EviDence SYNthesis in Complex Clinical Cases for Multimodal Large Language Models

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Multimodal large language models (MLLMs) have shown great.

  4. SurGo-R1: Benchmarking and Modeling Contextual Reasoning for Operative Zone in Surgical Video

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Minimally invasive surgery has dramatically improved patient operative.

  5. Assessing Large Language Models for Medical QA: Zero-Shot and LLM-as-a-Judge Evaluation

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge. Focus: bleu. Abstract: Recently, Large Language Models (LLMs) have gained significant traction in medical domain,.

  6. Multi-Objective Alignment of Language Models for Personalized Psychotherapy

    Adds automatic metrics with pairwise preferences for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + pairwise preferences. Focus: agreement. Abstract: While AI systems show therapeutic promise,.

  7. CUICurate: A GraphRAG-based Framework for Automated Clinical Concept Curation for NLP applications

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: precision. Abstract: Comparisons between the two LLMs found.

  8. What Makes a Good Doctor Response? An Analysis on a Romanian Telemedicine Platform

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Text-based telemedicine has become a common.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 16.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (0% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).
  • Narrative synthesis is grounded in metadata and abstracts only; full-paper implementation details are not parsed.
Research Utility Snapshot (Detailed)

Research Utility Snapshot

Human Feedback Mix

  • Expert Verification (7)
  • Pairwise Preference (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (12)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (6)
  • Agreement (2)
  • Bleu (2)
  • Cost (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (7)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 58.3% · benchmarks 0.0% · metrics 100.0% · quality controls 16.7%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Need human evaluators for your AI research? Scale annotation with expert AI Trainers.