Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Automatic Metrics + Medicine (Last 60 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 51 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 9, 2026). 51 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Llm As Judge. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: Diagnosisarena. 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 Mar 3, 2026.

Papers: 51 Last published: Mar 3, 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: Medium .

High-Signal Coverage

100.0%

51 / 51 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

7

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

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

Primary action: Start with the top 2 papers in “Start Here”, then validate assumptions in the protocol matrix.

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 70.6% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 100% of papers in this hub.
  • Diagnosisarena is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (5.9% of papers).
  • Rater context is mostly domain experts, and annotation is commonly multi-dimensional rubrics; use this to scope replication staffing.
  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.

Benchmark Interpretation

  • Diagnosisarena appears in 2% of hub papers (1/51); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • DROP appears in 2% of hub papers (1/51); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 72.5% of hub papers (37/51); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 13.7% of hub papers (7/51); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (70.6% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.7% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (13.7% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

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

  • Strong: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is strong (78.4% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (29.4% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (70.6% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 35.3% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 13.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (13.7% of papers mention benchmarks/datasets).

Suggested Next Analyses

  • Compare papers that report both human_eval and llm_as_judge to quantify judge-human agreement drift.
  • Stratify by benchmark (Diagnosisarena vs DROP) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and agreement.
Recommended Queries (Expanded)

Recommended Queries

Start with These 3

Use these when you need one protocol anchor, one benchmark anchor, and one recent comparison point before reading the wider hub.

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
PubMed Reasoner: Dynamic Reasoning-based Retrieval for Evidence-Grounded Biomedical Question Answering

Mar 28, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics MMLU Accuracy , Relevance Not Reported
Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Xpertbench Success rate Not Reported
QuarkMedBench: A Real-World Scenario Driven Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models

Mar 14, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Quarkmedbench Accuracy Not Reported
FairMed-XGB: A Bayesian-Optimised Multi-Metric Framework with Explainability for Demographic Equity in Critical Healthcare Data

Mar 16, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics DROP Accuracy , Auroc Not Reported
PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology

Mar 2, 2026

Yes Llm As Judge , Automatic Metrics Pancanbench , Healthbench Accuracy Not Reported
A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy Large-scale Clinical Information Extraction using Large Language Models

Apr 7, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported F1 , Agreement Calibration , Adjudication
Automating Clinical Information Retrieval from Finnish Electronic Health Records Using Large Language Models

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Precision Calibration
SleepVLM: Explainable and Rule-Grounded Sleep Staging via a Vision-Language Model

Mar 22, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Kappa Inter Annotator Agreement Reported
Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification

Mar 3, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Brier score , Auroc Calibration
From Days to Minutes: An Autonomous AI Agent Achieves Reliable Clinical Triage in Remote Patient Monitoring

Mar 10, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Kappa Adjudication
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

Protocol Diff (Top Papers)

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

Signal PubMed Reasoner: Dynamic Reasoning-based Retrieval… Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based E… QuarkMedBench: A Real-World Scenario Driven Benchma…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationRubric Rating, Expert VerificationRubric Rating
Evaluation Modes Llm As Judge, Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks MMLUXpertbenchQuarkmedbench
Metrics Accuracy, RelevanceSuccess rateAccuracy
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit UnknownMulti Dim RubricMulti Dim Rubric
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

  1. Guideline-Grounded Evidence Accumulation for High-Stakes Agent Verification

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: brier score. Abstract: As LLM-powered agents have been used for high-stakes decision-making,.

  2. 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.

  3. Joint Optimization of Reasoning and Dual-Memory for Self-Learning Diagnostic Agent

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Clinical expertise improves not only by acquiring medical knowledge, but by.

  4. Yale-DM-Lab at ArchEHR-QA 2026: Deterministic Grounding and Multi-Pass Evidence Alignment for EHR Question Answering

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: We describe the Yale-DM-Lab system for the ArchEHR-QA.

  5. A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy Large-scale Clinical Information Extraction using Large Language Models

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Conventional evaluation methods rely heavily on annotation-intensive reference.

  6. Improving Clinical Diagnosis with Counterfactual Multi-Agent Reasoning

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Human evaluation further indicates that our framework produces more.

  7. PanCanBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Evaluating Large Language Models in Pancreatic Oncology

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: LLM-as-judge + rubric ratings. Focus: Pancanbench / accuracy. Abstract: Moreover, high rubric-based scores do not ensure factual.

  8. PubMed Reasoner: Dynamic Reasoning-based Retrieval for Evidence-Grounded Biomedical Question Answering

    Include an LLM-as-judge paper to test judge design and agreement assumptions. Signals: LLM-as-judge + expert verification. Focus: MMLU / accuracy. Abstract: Moreover, LLM-as-judge evaluations prefer our responses across:.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 13.7% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (13.7% 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 (27)
  • Rubric Rating (7)
  • Pairwise Preference (4)
  • Critique Edit (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (51)
  • Llm As Judge (6)
  • Human Eval (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • Diagnosisarena (1)
  • DROP (1)
  • Healthbench (1)
  • Medpriv Bench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (37)
  • Agreement (7)
  • Precision (6)
  • Cost (5)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (40)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (3)
  • Calibration (3)
  • Gold Questions (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 70.6% · benchmarks 13.7% · metrics 100.0% · quality controls 13.7%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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