Skip to content
← Back to explorer

HFEPX Hub

Medicine Papers (Last 90 Days)

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 22 papers are grouped in this hub page.

Read Full Context

Updated from current HFEPX corpus (Mar 1, 2026). 22 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: Adjudication. Frequently cited benchmark: AIME. 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: 22 Last published: Feb 23, 2026 Global RSS Tag RSS
MedicineLast 90d

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%

22 / 22 sampled papers are not low-signal flagged.

Replication-Ready Set

0

Benchmark + metric + eval mode explicitly present.

Judge/Human Comparability

1

Papers containing both `human_eval` and `llm_as_judge`.

  • 0 papers are replication-ready (benchmark + metric + explicit evaluation mode).
  • 1 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

  • 72.7% of papers report explicit human-feedback signals, led by expert verification.
  • automatic metrics appears in 59.1% of papers in this hub.
  • AIME is a recurring benchmark anchor for cross-paper comparisons in this page.
Protocol Notes (Expanded)

Protocol Takeaways

  • Most common quality-control signal is adjudication (4.5% 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

  • AIME appears in 4.5% of hub papers (1/22); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.
  • Correctbench appears in 4.5% of hub papers (1/22); use this cohort for benchmark-matched comparisons.

Metric Interpretation

  • accuracy is reported in 27.3% of hub papers (6/22); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
  • agreement is reported in 13.6% of hub papers (3/22); compare with a secondary metric before ranking methods.
Researcher Checklist (Expanded)

Researcher Checklist

  • Strong: Papers with explicit human feedback

    Coverage is strong (72.7% vs 45% target).

  • Gap: Papers reporting quality controls

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 30% target).

  • Gap: Papers naming benchmarks/datasets

    Coverage is a replication risk (9.1% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers naming evaluation metrics

    Coverage is strong (63.6% vs 35% target).

  • Strong: Papers with known rater population

    Coverage is strong (63.6% vs 35% target).

  • Moderate: Papers with known annotation unit

    Coverage is usable but incomplete (22.7% vs 35% target).

Strengths

  • Strong human-feedback signal (72.7% of papers).
  • Contains both human-eval and LLM-as-judge protocols for head-to-head methodology comparison.
  • Agentic evaluation appears in 31.8% of papers.

Known Gaps

  • Only 9.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (22.7% coverage).
  • Benchmark coverage is thin (9.1% 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 (AIME vs Correctbench) before comparing methods.
  • 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
Decomposing Physician Disagreement in HealthBench

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Not Reported Healthbench Not Reported Not Reported
Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

Feb 21, 2026

Yes Human Eval GSM8K , AIME Not Reported Not Reported
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
Diffusion Model in Latent Space for Medical Image Segmentation Task

Dec 1, 2025

Yes Automatic Metrics Not Reported Mse Not Reported
TherapyProbe: Generating Design Knowledge for Relational Safety in Mental Health Chatbots Through Adversarial Simulation

Feb 26, 2026

Yes Simulation Env Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported
MedXIAOHE: A Comprehensive Recipe for Building Medical MLLMs

Feb 13, 2026

Yes Not Reported Not Reported Not Reported 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… Decomposing Physician Disagreement in HealthBench
Human Feedback Expert VerificationExpert VerificationRubric Rating
Evaluation Modes Automatic MetricsAutomatic MetricsNot reported
Benchmarks Not reportedNot reportedHealthbench
Metrics F1, PrecisionAgreementNot reported
Quality Controls Gold QuestionsAdjudicationNot reported
Rater Population Domain ExpertsDomain ExpertsDomain Experts
Annotation Unit RankingUnknownMulti 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. 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. pMoE: Prompting Diverse Experts Together Wins More in Visual Adaptation

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: expert verification. Abstract: Parameter-efficient fine-tuning has demonstrated promising results across various visual adaptation tasks, such as.

  4. TherapyProbe: Generating Design Knowledge for Relational Safety in Mental Health Chatbots Through Adversarial Simulation

    High citation traction makes this a strong baseline for protocol comparison. Signals: simulation environments + expert verification. Abstract: As mental health chatbots proliferate to address the global treatment.

  5. Think$^{2}$: Grounded Metacognitive Reasoning in Large Language Models

    Include a human-eval paper to calibrate against judge-based evaluation settings. Signals: human evaluation + pairwise preferences. Focus: GSM8K. Abstract: Blinded human evaluations over 580 query pairs show an.

  6. 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,.

  7. Assessing Risks of Large Language Models in Mental Health Support: A Framework for Automated Clinical AI Red Teaming

    Adds simulation environments with red-team protocols for broader protocol coverage within this hub. Signals: simulation environments + red-team protocols. Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized for.

  8. 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,.

Known Limitations

Known Limitations

  • Only 9.1% of papers report quality controls; prioritize calibration/adjudication evidence.
  • Annotation unit is under-specified (22.7% coverage).
  • 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 (11)
  • Pairwise Preference (4)
  • Rubric Rating (2)
  • Red Team (1)

Evaluation Modes

  • Automatic Metrics (13)
  • Human Eval (2)
  • Llm As Judge (2)
  • Simulation Env (2)

Top Benchmarks

  • AIME (1)
  • Correctbench (1)
  • Cruxeval (1)
  • GSM8K (1)

Top Metrics

  • Accuracy (6)
  • Agreement (3)
  • Bleu (2)
  • Cost (2)

Rater Population Mix

  • Domain Experts (14)

Quality Controls

  • Adjudication (1)
  • Gold Questions (1)
Coverage diagnostics (sample-based): human-feedback 72.7% · benchmarks 9.1% · metrics 59.1% · quality controls 9.1%.

Top Papers

Related Hubs

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