Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Medicine + Expert Verification (Last 30 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Apr 17, 2026). 16 papers are grouped in this hub page. Common evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics, Human Eval. Most common rater population: Domain Experts. Common annotation unit: Multi Dim Rubric. Frequent quality control: Calibration. Frequently cited benchmark: Cpgbench. 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 28, 2026.

Papers: 16 Last published: Mar 28, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
MedicineExpert VerificationLast 30d

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%

16 / 16 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

2

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

0

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

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

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

Need evaluators for this research workflow?

Post a Job →

Why This Matters For Eval Research

  • 100% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 68.8% of papers in this hub.
  • Cpgbench is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is rater calibration (18.8% 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

  • Cpgbench appears in 6.3% of hub papers (1/16); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • MMLU appears in 6.3% of hub papers (1/16); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 50% of hub papers (8/16); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • f1 is reported in 18.8% of hub papers (3/16); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (100% vs 45% target).

  • Strong: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is strong (31.3% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (18.8% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (75% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known rater population

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

  • Gap: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is a replication risk (6.3% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (100% of papers).
  • Quality-control evidence appears in 31.3% of papers.
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.

Known Gaps

  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.3% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (18.8% 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 (Cpgbench vs MMLU) before comparing methods.
  • Track metric sensitivity by reporting both accuracy and f1.
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
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
EpiScreen: Early Epilepsy Detection from Electronic Health Records with Large Language Models

Mar 30, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported Gold Questions
A Decade-Scale Benchmark Evaluating LLMs' Clinical Practice Guidelines Detection and Adherence in Multi-turn Conversations

Mar 26, 2026

Yes Human Eval Cpgbench Not Reported Not Reported
Improving Clinical Diagnosis with Counterfactual Multi-Agent Reasoning

Mar 29, 2026

Yes Human Eval , Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
ClinicalAgents: Multi-Agent Orchestration for Clinical Decision Making with Dual-Memory

Mar 27, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy Not Reported
A Multidisciplinary AI Board for Multimodal Dementia Characterization and Risk Assessment

Mar 23, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Auroc Not Reported
Yale-DM-Lab at ArchEHR-QA 2026: Deterministic Grounding and Multi-Pass Evidence Alignment for EHR Question Answering

Apr 8, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , F1 Not Reported
Development and multi-center evaluation of domain-adapted speech recognition for human-AI teaming in real-world gastrointestinal endoscopy

Apr 2, 2026

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Accuracy , Error rate Not Reported

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… A Multi-Stage Validation Framework for Trustworthy…
Human Feedback Expert VerificationRubric Rating, Expert VerificationExpert Verification
Evaluation Modes Llm As Judge, Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsAutomatic Metrics
Benchmarks MMLUXpertbenchNot reported
Metrics Accuracy, RelevanceSuccess rateF1, Agreement
Quality Controls Not reportedNot reportedCalibration, Adjudication
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit UnknownMulti Dim RubricUnknown
Suggested Reading Order (Extended)

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

Suggested Reading Order

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: We describe the Yale-DM-Lab system for the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared.

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

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: f1. Abstract: Conventional evaluation methods rely heavily on annotation-intensive reference standards or.

  3. Development and multi-center evaluation of domain-adapted speech recognition for human-AI teaming in real-world gastrointestinal endoscopy

    Start here for detailed protocol reporting and quality-control evidence. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Automatic speech recognition (ASR) is a critical interface for human-AI.

  4. 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.

  5. A Decade-Scale Benchmark Evaluating LLMs' Clinical Practice Guidelines Detection and Adherence in Multi-turn Conversations

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + expert verification. Focus: Cpgbench. Abstract: To confirm the validity of our automatic analysis, we.

  6. 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:.

  7. Xpertbench: Expert Level Tasks with Rubrics-Based Evaluation

    Adds automatic metrics with rubric ratings for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + rubric ratings. Focus: Xpertbench / success rate. Abstract: Each task uses.

  8. Automating Clinical Information Retrieval from Finnish Electronic Health Records Using Large Language Models

    Adds automatic metrics with expert verification for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: automatic metrics + expert verification. Focus: accuracy. Abstract: Clinicians often need to retrieve patient-specific.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Annotation unit is under-specified (6.3% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (18.8% 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 (16)
  • Rubric Rating (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (11)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (1)

Top Benchmarks

  • Cpgbench (1)
  • MMLU (1)
  • Xpertbench (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (8)
  • F1 (3)
  • Agreement (2)
  • F1 micro (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (16)

Quality Controls

  • Calibration (3)
  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)
  • Inter Annotator Agreement Reported (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 100.0% · benchmarks 18.8% · metrics 75.0% · quality controls 31.3%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

Get Started

Join the #1 Platform for AI Training Talent

Where top AI builders and expert AI Trainers connect to build the future of AI.
Self-Service
Post a Job
Post your project and get a shortlist of qualified AI Trainers and Data Labelers. Hire and manage your team in the tools you already use.
Managed Service
For Large Projects
Done-for-You
We recruit, onboard, and manage a dedicated team inside your tools. End-to-end operations for large or complex projects.
For Freelancers
Join as an AI Trainer
Find AI training and data labeling projects across platforms, all in one place. One profile, one application process, more opportunities.