Skip to content
OpenTrain AIFor AI Companies

HFEPX · Eval paper review

Healthy LLMs? Benchmarking LLM Knowledge of UK Government Public Health Information

Joshua Harris, Fan Grayson, Felix Feldman, Timothy Laurence +7 more

Published

May 9, 2025

Citations

0

Trust level

Moderate

Usefulness score

25/100 (Low)

Extraction confidence

55% (Moderate)

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Rater population

Not reported

Signals refreshed

Mar 9, 2026

Open arXiv Find implementation Shortlist (0) RSS feed

Tags

Automatic Metrics Medicine Web Browsing

Should you rely on this paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Use this for comparison and orientation, not as your only source.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A benchmark-and-metrics comparison anchor.

What to verify

Validate the evaluation procedure and quality controls in the full paper before operational use.

Main weakness

No major weakness surfaced.

Human feedback signal
Not explicit
Not explicit in abstract metadata
Evaluation signal
Detected
Eval setup described
Usefulness for eval research
25/100
Adjacent candidate

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here

Human Eval Papers LLM-as-Judge Papers Pairwise Preference Papers Tool-Use Evaluation Search

Abstract

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely accessible, a detailed understanding of their knowledge within specific domains becomes necessary for successful real world use. This is particularly critical in the domains of medicine and public health, where failure to retrieve relevant, accurate, and current information could significantly impact UK residents. However, while there are a number of LLM benchmarks in the medical domain, currently little is known about LLM knowledge within the field of public health. To address this issue, this paper introduces a new benchmark, PubHealthBench, with over 8000 questions for evaluating LLMs' Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and free form responses to public health queries. To create PubHealthBench we extract free text from 687 current UK government guidance documents and implement an automated pipeline for generating MCQA samples. Assessing 24 LLMs on PubHealthBench we find the latest proprietary LLMs (GPT-4.5, GPT-4.1 and o1) have a high degree of knowledge, achieving >90% accuracy in the MCQA setup, and outperform humans with cursory search engine use. However, in the free form setup we see lower performance with no model scoring >75%. Therefore, while there are promising signs that state of the art (SOTA) LLMs are an increasingly accurate source of public health information, additional safeguards or tools may still be needed when providing free form responses.

What we could verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

"As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely accessible, a detailed understanding of their knowledge within specific domains becomes necessary for successful real world use."

Evaluation Modes

strong

Automatic Metrics

Includes extracted eval setup.

"As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely accessible, a detailed understanding of their knowledge within specific domains becomes necessary for successful real world use."

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

No explicit QC controls found.

"As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely accessible, a detailed understanding of their knowledge within specific domains becomes necessary for successful real world use."

Benchmarks / Datasets

strong

Pubhealthbench

Useful for quick benchmark comparison.

"To address this issue, this paper introduces a new benchmark, PubHealthBench, with over 8000 questions for evaluating LLMs' Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and free form responses to public health queries."

Reported Metrics

strong

Accuracy

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

"Assessing 24 LLMs on PubHealthBench we find the latest proprietary LLMs (GPT-4.5, GPT-4.1 and o1) have a high degree of knowledge, achieving >90% accuracy in the MCQA setup, and outperform humans with cursory search engine use."

Benchmarks and datasets

Pubhealthbench

Reported metrics

accuracy
Human feedback details
Uses human feedback
No
Feedback types
None
Rater population
Not reported
Unit of annotation
Freeform
Expertise required
Medicine
Evaluation details
Evaluation modes
Automatic Metrics
Agentic eval
Web Browsing
Quality controls
Not reported
Evidence quality
Moderate
Use this page as
Background context only

Research brief

Metadata summary

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely accessible, a detailed understanding of their knowledge within specific domains becomes necessary for successful real world use.

Based on abstract + metadata only. Check the source paper before making high-confidence protocol decisions.

Key takeaways

  • As Large Language Models (LLMs) become widely accessible, a detailed understanding of their knowledge within specific domains becomes necessary for successful real world use.
  • This is particularly critical in the domains of medicine and public health, where failure to retrieve relevant, accurate, and current information could significantly impact UK residents.
  • However, while there are a number of LLM benchmarks in the medical domain, currently little is known about LLM knowledge within the field of public health.

Researcher actions

  • Compare this paper against nearby papers in the same arXiv category before using it for protocol decisions.
  • Validate inferred eval signals (Automatic metrics) against the full paper.
  • Use related-paper links to find stronger protocol-specific references.

Caveats

  • Generated from abstract + metadata only; no PDF parsing.
  • Signals below are heuristic and may miss details reported outside the abstract.

Recommended queries

Accuracy

Contribution summary

  • However, while there are a number of LLM benchmarks in the medical domain, currently little is known about LLM knowledge within the field of public health.
  • To address this issue, this paper introduces a new benchmark, PubHealthBench, with over 8000 questions for evaluating LLMs' Multiple Choice Question Answering (MCQA) and free form responses to public health queries.
  • Assessing 24 LLMs on PubHealthBench we find the latest proprietary LLMs (GPT-4.5, GPT-4.1 and o1) have a high degree of knowledge, achieving >90% accuracy in the MCQA setup, and outperform humans with cursory search engine use.

Why it matters for eval

  • However, while there are a number of LLM benchmarks in the medical domain, currently little is known about LLM knowledge within the field of public health.
  • Assessing 24 LLMs on PubHealthBench we find the latest proprietary LLMs (GPT-4.5, GPT-4.1 and o1) have a high degree of knowledge, achieving >90% accuracy in the MCQA setup, and outperform humans with cursory search engine use.

Researcher checklist

  • Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    Detected: Pubhealthbench

  • Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy