Skip to content
← Back to explorer

Evidence-Grounded Subspecialty Reasoning: Evaluating a Curated Clinical Intelligence Layer on the 2025 Endocrinology Board-Style Examination

Amir Hosseinian, MohammadReza Zare Shahneh, Umer Mansoor, Gilbert Szeto, Kirill Karlin, Nima Aghaeepour · Feb 17, 2026 · Citations: 0

Automatic Metrics
Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this paper page

Coverage: Stale

Use this page to decide whether the paper is strong enough to influence an eval design. It summarizes the abstract plus available structured metadata. If the signal is thin, use it as background context and compare it against stronger hub pages before making protocol choices.

Best use

Background context only

Metadata: Stale

Trust level

Low

Signals: Stale

What still needs checking

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Signal confidence: 0.35

Abstract

Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies. Methods: We evaluated January Mirror, an evidence-grounded clinical reasoning system, against frontier LLMs (GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Pro) on a 120-question endocrinology board-style examination. Mirror integrates a curated endocrinology and cardiometabolic evidence corpus with a structured reasoning architecture to generate evidence-linked outputs. Mirror operated under a closed-evidence constraint without external retrieval. Comparator LLMs had real-time web access to guidelines and primary literature. Results: Mirror achieved 87.5% accuracy (105/120; 95% CI: 80.4-92.3%), exceeding a human reference of 62.3% and frontier LLMs including GPT-5.2 (74.6%), GPT-5 (74.0%), and Gemini-3-Pro (69.8%). On the 30 most difficult questions (human accuracy less than 50%), Mirror achieved 76.7% accuracy. Top-2 accuracy was 92.5% for Mirror versus 85.25% for GPT-5.2. Conclusions: Mirror provided evidence traceability: 74.2% of outputs cited at least one guideline-tier source, with 100% citation accuracy on manual verification. Curated evidence with explicit provenance can outperform unconstrained web retrieval for subspecialty clinical reasoning and supports auditability for clinical deployment.

Use caution before copying this protocol

Use this page for context, then validate protocol choices against stronger HFEPX references before implementation decisions.

  • Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.
  • Extraction confidence is 0.35 (below strong-reference threshold).
Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

HFEPX Relevance Assessment

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

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

A secondary eval reference to pair with stronger protocol papers.

Main weakness

Extraction flags indicate low-signal or possible false-positive protocol mapping.

Trust level

Low

Eval-Fit Score

0/100 • Low

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

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Detected

HFEPX Fit

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence: Low

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What This Page Found In The Paper

Each field below shows whether the signal looked explicit, partial, or missing in the available metadata. Use this to judge what is safe to trust directly and what still needs full-paper validation.

Human Feedback Types

missing

None explicit

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit feedback protocol extracted.

Evidence snippet: Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.

Evaluation Modes

partial

Automatic Metrics

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Includes extracted eval setup.

Evidence snippet: Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.

Quality Controls

missing

Not reported

Confidence: Low Not found

No explicit QC controls found.

Evidence snippet: Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.

Benchmarks / Datasets

missing

Not extracted

Confidence: Low Not found

No benchmark anchors detected.

Evidence snippet: Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.

Reported Metrics

partial

Accuracy

Confidence: Low Direct evidence

Useful for evaluation criteria comparison.

Evidence snippet: Results: Mirror achieved 87.5% accuracy (105/120; 95% CI: 80.4-92.3%), exceeding a human reference of 62.3% and frontier LLMs including GPT-5.2 (74.6%), GPT-5 (74.0%), and Gemini-3-Pro (69.8%).

Rater Population

missing

Unknown

Confidence: Low Not found

Rater source not explicitly reported.

Evidence snippet: Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.

Human Data Lens

  • Uses human feedback: No
  • Feedback types: None
  • Rater population: Unknown
  • Unit of annotation: Unknown
  • Expertise required: Medicine
  • Signal basis: Structured extraction plus abstract evidence.

Evaluation Lens

  • Evaluation modes: Automatic Metrics
  • Agentic eval: None
  • Quality controls: Not reported
  • Signal confidence: 0.35
  • Known cautions: low_signal, possible_false_positive

Protocol And Measurement Signals

Benchmarks / Datasets

No benchmark or dataset names were extracted from the available abstract.

Reported Metrics

accuracy

Research Brief

Metadata summary

Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.

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

Key Takeaways

  • Background: Large language models have demonstrated strong performance on general medical examinations, but subspecialty clinical reasoning remains challenging due to rapidly evolving guidelines and nuanced evidence hierarchies.
  • Methods: We evaluated January Mirror, an evidence-grounded clinical reasoning system, against frontier LLMs (GPT-5, GPT-5.2, Gemini-3-Pro) on a 120-question endocrinology board-style examination.
  • Mirror integrates a curated endocrinology and cardiometabolic evidence corpus with a structured reasoning architecture to generate evidence-linked outputs.

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

Research Summary

Contribution Summary

  • Results: Mirror achieved 87.5% accuracy (105/120; 95% CI: 80.4-92.3%), exceeding a human reference of 62.3% and frontier LLMs including GPT-5.2 (74.6%), GPT-5 (74.0%), and Gemini-3-Pro (69.8%).
  • On the 30 most difficult questions (human accuracy less than 50%), Mirror achieved 76.7% accuracy.
  • Top-2 accuracy was 92.5% for Mirror versus 85.25% for GPT-5.2.

Why It Matters For Eval

  • Results: Mirror achieved 87.5% accuracy (105/120; 95% CI: 80.4-92.3%), exceeding a human reference of 62.3% and frontier LLMs including GPT-5.2 (74.6%), GPT-5 (74.0%), and Gemini-3-Pro (69.8%).
  • On the 30 most difficult questions (human accuracy less than 50%), Mirror achieved 76.7% accuracy.

Researcher Checklist

  • Gap: Human feedback protocol is explicit

    No explicit human feedback protocol detected.

  • Pass: Evaluation mode is explicit

    Detected: Automatic Metrics

  • Gap: Quality control reporting appears

    No calibration/adjudication/IAA control explicitly detected.

  • Gap: Benchmark or dataset anchors are present

    No benchmark/dataset anchor extracted from abstract.

  • Pass: Metric reporting is present

    Detected: accuracy

Related Papers

Papers are ranked by protocol overlap, extraction signal alignment, and semantic proximity.

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.
Create Account & Post a Job
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.
Learn About Managed Service
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.
Join Now