Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 6 minor 26 references

Revolutionizing Radiology Workflow with Factual and Efficient CXR Report Generation

T0 review · 6 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read CXR-PathFinder, a 1-billion-parameter model for chest X-ray reports, is claimed to outperform medical multimodal models dozens to hundreds of times larger on clinical accuracy and to earn higher ratings from blinded radiologists.

desk verdict A coherent but unverifiable pipeline paper: the 1B model's superiority over Med-PaLM-M rests entirely on an undisclosed test subset and unspecified baselines. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.01118 v1 pith:PPMNVX7Q submitted 2025-06-01 cs.CV

Pimchanok Sukjai , Apiradee Boonmee This is my paper
classification cs.CV
keywords chestX-rayreportgenerationmedicalvision-languagemodelclinician-guidedadversarialfine-tuningknowledgegraphverificationhallucinationreductionclinicalaccuracymetricsradiologistevaluationparameterefficiency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that automated chest X-ray report generation can be made both factually reliable and practical in size by combining clinical knowledge with adversarial training and external verification, rather than by scaling parameters. It introduces CXR-PathFinder, a 1-billion-parameter model, and reports that it beats all tested baselines, including medical multimodal models with 84 billion and 562 billion parameters, on Macro F1 and Micro F1 over 14 common and 5 critical CXR findings. A knowledge-graph verification layer is credited with lowering the hallucination rate from 4.8% to 1.2%, and blinded radiologists rate its reports higher than the best baseline on accuracy, completeness, clarity, and clinical utility. If true, this matters because a smaller, faster, accurate model is far easier to deploy in real radiology workflows than a huge one.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the four-phase training pipeline capped by CGAFT, Clinician-Guided Adversarial Fine-Tuning: the generator produces candidate reports, a discriminator judges whether they match the image and prompt, and a reward model trained on clinician feedback drives the generator's policy updates. At inference, KGAM, the Knowledge Graph Augmentation Module, parses medical entities from the draft report, verifies them against authoritative medical knowledge bases, and triggers correction or standardized terminology replacement. The paper's argument is that this combination — clinician preference signals plus adversarial pressure plus external factual verification — produces the reported gains, so that a 1-billion-parameter model can exceed much larger competitors.

What would settle it

Re-run the head-to-head comparison on a fixed, publicly released test split with pre-registered prompts and documented baseline settings; if the 1-billion-parameter model's Macro F1 (14) no longer exceeds the strongest 3-billion-parameter CXR-specific baseline or the 84-billion and 562-billion medical models, or if blinded radiologists no longer rate its reports above the best baseline, the paper's central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that expert-guided adversarial fine-tuning, not sheer model scale, is what buys clinical accuracy in automated chest X-ray reporting. CXR-PathFinder couples a clinical language model, a multi-scale adaptive visual encoder, and a dynamic cross-modal fusion network, then trains the whole system with Clinician-Guided Adversarial Fine-Tuning (CGAFT): a generator and a discriminator compete while a reward model trained on clinician preference ratings guides the generator through reinforcement learning. At inference, a Knowledge Graph Augmentation Module (KGAM) checks generated statements against authoritative medical knowledge bases and corrects inconsistencies. On the paper's reported numbers, this 1-billion-parameter model reaches a Macro F1 (14) of 46.5 and a Micro F1 (14) of 59.5, surpassing baselines with tens to hundreds of billions of parameters, and blinded radiologists score its clinical accuracy at 4.6 out of 5.

Load-bearing premise

The reported superiority rests on the assumption that the test subset precisely mimics public benchmarks and that all baselines were run in a truly comparable configuration, yet the paper does not disclose the exact split, prompts, or whether baselines were fine-tuned; if that assumption fails, the performance gaps are an artifact of comparison rather than a real advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A deployable chest X-ray report generator does not require a frontier-scale model; a 1-billion-parameter model can outperform systems tens to hundreds of times larger on clinical F1 metrics.
  • Adding a knowledge-graph verification step at inference can cut medically significant hallucinations by roughly a factor of four while raising standardized terminology adherence from 88.3% to 97.1%.
  • Blinded radiologist ratings track the quantitative clinical accuracy gains, so the reported improvements are not merely lexical artifacts.
  • At 0.9 seconds per report and about 72 tokens per output, the model is fast and concise enough to fit into a real radiology reading workflow.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the comparison is independently replicated, the same clinician-feedback-plus-knowledge-graph recipe could plausibly be transferred to other imaging modalities before comparable human-validated datasets exist.
  • Because KGAM operates at inference time, existing chest X-ray report generators could be retrofitted with knowledge-graph verification without retraining.
  • The efficiency numbers suggest that privacy-preserving, on-premise deployment in hospitals is closer than the paper's future-work framing implies.
  • A natural next test is whether the hallucination-rate reduction persists on rare diseases and out-of-distribution image quality, since the paper reports rare-finding F1 separately but does not show KGAM's effect on that subset.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

6 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript introduces CXR-PathFinder, a 1B-parameter vision-language model for chest X-ray report generation, together with a training strategy called Clinician-Guided Adversarial Fine-Tuning (CGAFT) and an inference-time Knowledge Graph Augmentation Module (KGAM). The authors report that CXR-PathFinder outperforms larger baselines including Med-PaLM-M and CheXagent on clinical accuracy metrics (e.g., Macro F1 (14): 46.5) and receives higher blinded radiologist ratings (Clinical Accuracy 4.6/5). The paper also includes ablation studies for CGAFT and KGAM, robustness analyses, rare-disease performance, and efficiency measurements. The central claim is that the proposed method delivers state-of-the-art accuracy at substantially lower parameter count, making it practically attractive for clinical workflow.

Significance. If the reported results were fully verified, the paper would make a meaningful contribution: a 1B model beating much larger medical VLMs on clinical accuracy is an important efficiency result, and the idea of combining clinician feedback with adversarial training plus knowledge-graph verification is worth investigating. The manuscript, however, does not provide the evidence needed to support this central claim. No code or data is released, the evaluation subset is not disclosed, baseline configurations are unspecified, no statistical tests or error bars are given, and at least one table row appears internally inconsistent. The paper's contributions are therefore currently unverifiable, and the significance assessment must be conditional on a substantially revised and reproducible evaluation.

major comments (6)
  1. [Section 4.1] The test set is not disclosed. The paper states that a 'dedicated subset of CXR-BridgeInstruct that precisely mimics the structural and content characteristics of publicly available benchmarks' was used, but it does not specify the subset size, the selection procedure, whether patient-level duplicates were removed, which public benchmark was mimicked, or where the subset can be obtained. Because Phase 3 (Section 3.2) trains on CXR-BridgeInstruct itself, any overlap between this subset and the training distribution would directly inflate CXR-PathFinder's numbers in Table 1. This is a load-bearing omission for the paper's headline result.
  2. [Section 4.1] The baseline evaluation protocol is not specified. The sentence 'All baseline models were configured with their publicly recommended settings or, where necessary, retrained on our available data subsets' leaves unclear whether each baseline was used zero-shot, few-shot, or fine-tuned, what prompts were used, what decoding parameters were chosen, and how many runs were averaged. Without these details, the comparisons in Table 1 are not meaningful, and the small gaps in some metrics (e.g., Macro F1 46.5 vs. 44.9) could easily arise from prompt or configuration mismatch rather than model superiority.
  3. [Table 1] The row for Med-PaLM-M (562B) is identical to the row for Med-PaLM-M (12B) across all five columns. This is either a copy-paste error or evidence that the 562B model was not actually evaluated. As printed, the table does not support the claim that CXR-PathFinder outperforms Med-PaLM-M (562B), because the reported values for that model are not credible as independent measurements.
  4. [Section 4.3, Table 3] There is a circularity risk in the KGAM ablation. KGAM is used at inference time to rewrite non-standard terminology and correct hallucinations; the paper then reports that the full model improves 'Standardized Terminology Adherence' to 97.1% and reduces hallucination rate to 1.2%. If the same knowledge-graph module or its underlying knowledge base is used to compute these adherence and hallucination scores, the improvement is partly self-referential. The paper must specify whether these metrics were computed by an independent annotator or parser that does not use KGAM; as written, the KGAM contribution is not convincingly validated.
  5. [Section 4.4] The human evaluation is too thinly reported to support the claim of superior clinical utility. Only three radiologists participated, the 'randomly selected subset' of reports is not characterized, no inter-rater agreement (e.g., Cohen's kappa or intraclass correlation) is reported, and there are no confidence intervals or statistical tests. The statement in the conclusion that CXR-PathFinder reports were 'significantly more accurate' than baselines is therefore not justified by the data presented.
  6. [References [9]] The dataset CXR-BridgeInstruct is not formally cited. Reference [9] is incomplete (no venue, year, or identifier), and no version or download location is given. Combined with the absence of released code or data, this makes the experimental results irreproducible, which is a fundamental barrier to evaluating the paper's central claim.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section 3.2, Phase 1] The text cites 'Section 2.1.1,' but Section 2.1 has no subsection 2.1.1; the cross-reference should be corrected or removed.
  2. [Equations (14)-(15)] The discriminator is defined with output S_D in Equation (14), but Equation (15) is written directly in terms of D(I, Prompt, R); the notation should be unified.
  3. [Table 1] The 'Average Score' column appears to be a simple arithmetic mean of the four F1 scores; this should be stated explicitly so readers can interpret the aggregate measure.
  4. [Tables 5-7] The robustness, rare-disease, and efficiency analyses compare only MARIA-2 and CheXagent, not the full baseline set; the authors should clarify why these baselines were selected for these additional comparisons.
  5. [Section 4.5] The rare-disease evaluation uses a 'curated subset' of CXR-BridgeInstruct with findings appearing in less than 0.5% of the dataset, but the subset size and the list of findings are not provided, which limits the interpretability of the reported F1 score.
  6. [Conclusion] The conclusion states that CXR-PathFinder is 'significantly more accurate' without reporting any statistical significance testing; the language should be tempered to match the evidence actually presented.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The KGAM ablation is circular: the module is built to correct hallucinations and enforce standardized terminology, and Table 3 validates it with exactly those two measures, so the improvement is by construction.

  1. self definitional [Section 3.2, Phase 5 (KGAM); Section 4.3, Table 3]
    "After the CXR-PathFinder (generator) produces an initial draft report R_G, the KGAM intercepts this draft. ... If the KGAM detects any factual inconsistency, an unsupported claim, or the use of non-standardized terminology, it triggers a correction mechanism. ... The integration of the KGAM dramatically reduces the hallucination rate, yielding a nearly four-fold decrease. Concurrently, it significantly improves the adherence to standardized medical terminology, achieving an impressive 97.1%."

    KGAM is not described as an independent evaluator: it is a post-processing filter that verifies statements against the knowledge graph K and rewrites non-standard terminology before output. Table 3 then quantifies KGAM's benefit using exactly the properties KGAM was built to enforce—hallucination rate and standardized terminology adherence—with K (UMLS/SNOMED) serving as both the correction source and the implied reference standard. The drop from 4.8% to 1.2% hallucination and the rise from 88.3% to 97.1% adherence follow from the module executing its own correction rules; the ablation result is self-definitional rather than an independent validation.

full rationale

The core CGAFT training scheme and the clinical-accuracy comparisons in Table 1 are not circular: the F1 metrics are computed from generated versus ground-truth findings, and the human radiology evaluation is blinded and external to the method. The main circular element is the KGAM effectiveness claim in Table 3. The KGAM is engineered to intercept drafts, fact-check them against a knowledge graph, and replace non-standard terminology, and the paper then reports 'Hallucination Rate' and 'Standardized Terminology Adherence' as evidence of its value. Those two metrics measure precisely what the module is designed to enforce, so the observed improvement is a definitional consequence of the intervention rather than an independent confirmation of clinical benefit. Separately, the comparison against baselines has reproducibility problems: the test subset is drawn from CXR-BridgeInstruct, the same dataset used for Phase 3 fine-tuning, and the split size, overlap handling, prompt details, and baseline configurations are not disclosed; Med-PaLM-M (562B) also has a row identical to Med-PaLM-M (12B), and Section 3.2 cites a non-existent 'Section 2.1.1'. These issues threaten verifiability and fairness but are not themselves instances of circular derivation, so they are noted here rather than scored as additional circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 4 invented entities

The paper introduces several named components and claims they improve report generation, but provides no artifacts or external evidence for any of them. The only explicit free parameter is the set of concealed training hyperparameters.

free parameters (1)
  • Training hyperparameters (PPO clip ε, KL penalty β, learning rates) = not reported
    These values are required to reproduce the CGAFT training (Section 3.2 Phase 4) but are omitted.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The CXR-BridgeInstruct dataset is a valid, representative corpus of CXR images with expert reports.
    The paper relies on this dataset for both training and evaluation (Section 4.1) but provides no dataset details or access.
  • domain assumption The described training pipeline (phases, losses, PPO) is implementable as written and produces the reported numbers.
    No code, hyperparameters, or model checkpoints are provided, so this premise is unverifiable.
  • domain assumption Knowledge graphs such as UMLS/SNOMED CT are authoritative for verifying medical assertions.
    KGAM (Section 3.2 Phase 5) assumes these sources are sufficient for fact checking.
  • standard math The transformer and cross-attention equations are standard.
    Equations (1)-(9) are textbook attention definitions.
invented entities (4)
  • CXR-PathFinder
    purpose: Proposed 1B-parameter vision-language model for CXR report generation
    No implementation is released, and performance claims are not externally verified.
  • Clinician-Guided Adversarial Fine-Tuning (CGAFT)
    purpose: Training strategy combining adversarial discriminator and clinician feedback
    Described only at a conceptual level; no algorithm or ablation detail differentiates it from standard RLHF.
  • Knowledge Graph Augmentation Module (KGAM)
    purpose: Inference-time verification against UMLS/SNOMED CT
    The module is claimed to reduce hallucinations, but the correction mechanism and evaluation are not described in enough detail to be independently assessed.
  • DS-CLM, MS-AVE, DA-CMFN
    purpose: Internal modules of the CXR-PathFinder architecture
    These modules are named but only described with standard equations, with no implementation specifics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revolutionizing Radiology Workflow with Factual and Efficient CXR Report Generation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PPMNVX7Q

@misc{pith2026250601118,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revolutionizing Radiology Workflow with Factual and Efficient CXR Report Generation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PPMNVX7Q}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.01118}
}
read the original abstract

The escalating demand for medical image interpretation underscores the critical need for advanced artificial intelligence solutions to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of radiological diagnoses. This paper introduces CXR-PathFinder, a novel Large Language Model (LLM)-centric foundation model specifically engineered for automated chest X-ray (CXR) report generation. We propose a unique training paradigm, Clinician-Guided Adversarial Fine-Tuning (CGAFT), which meticulously integrates expert clinical feedback into an adversarial learning framework to mitigate factual inconsistencies and improve diagnostic precision. Complementing this, our Knowledge Graph Augmentation Module (KGAM) acts as an inference-time safeguard, dynamically verifying generated medical statements against authoritative knowledge bases to minimize hallucinations and ensure standardized terminology. Leveraging a comprehensive dataset of millions of paired CXR images and expert reports, our experiments demonstrate that CXR-PathFinder significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-art medical vision-language models across various quantitative metrics, including clinical accuracy (Macro F1 (14): 46.5, Micro F1 (14): 59.5). Furthermore, blinded human evaluation by board-certified radiologists confirms CXR-PathFinder's superior clinical utility, completeness, and accuracy, establishing its potential as a reliable and efficient aid for radiological practice. The developed method effectively balances high diagnostic fidelity with computational efficiency, providing a robust solution for automated medical report generation.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

26 extracted references · 12 canonical work pages

  1. [9]

    Zhao, B.N., Wang, Z., JIANG, X., Luo, X., Yang, Y., Li, B., Alvarez-Valle, J., Lungren, M.P., Li, D., Qiu, L.: Benchmark dataset for radiology report generation with instructions and contexts

    work page

  2. [1]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23512 (2025)

    Yi, Q., He, Y., Wang, J., Song, X., Qian, S., Yuan, X., Zhang, M., Sun, L., Li, K., Lu, K., et al.: Score: Story coherence and retrieval enhancement for ai narratives. arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.23512 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19732 (2024)

    Zhou, Y., Rao, Z., Wan, J., Shen, J.: Rethinking visual dependency in long-context reasoning for large vision-language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.19732 (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  4. [3]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024

    Zhou, Y., Li, X., Wang, Q., Shen, J.: Visual in-context learning for large vision- language models. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2024, Bangkok, Thailand and virtual meeting, August 11-16, 2024. pp. 15890– 15902. Association for Computational Linguistics (2024)

    2024

  5. [4]

    In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023

    Zhou, Y., Long, G.: Style-aware contrastive learning for multi-style image caption- ing. In: Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: EACL 2023. pp. 2257–2267 (2023)

    2023

  6. [5]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01377 (2025)

    Zhou, Y., Song, L., Shen, J.: Training medical large vision-language models with abnormal-aware feedback. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.01377 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  7. [6]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08734 (2023) 20 P

    Zhou, Y., Geng, X., Shen, T., Tao, C., Long, G., Lou, J.G., Shen, J.: Thread of thought unraveling chaotic contexts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.08734 (2023) 20 P. Sukjai et al

    arXiv 2023

  8. [7]

    In: The Thirteenth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2025),https://openreview.net/forum?id= N1vYivuSKq

    Zhou, Y., Shen, J., Cheng, Y.: Weak to strong generalization for large lan- guage models with multi-capabilities. In: The Thirteenth International Confer- ence on Learning Representations (2025),https://openreview.net/forum?id= N1vYivuSKq

    work page 2025

Show all 26 references
  1. [8]

    arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20367 (2024)

    Wang, J., Zhang, Z., He, Y., Song, Y., Shi, T., Li, Y., Xu, H., Wu, K., Qian, G., Chen, Q., et al.: Enhancing code llms with reinforcement learning in code generation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.20367 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    In: 58th ACM/IEEE Design Au- tomation Conference, DAC 2021, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 5-9, 2021

    Zhang, X., Yang, H., Young, E.F.Y.: Attentional transfer is all you need: Technology-aware layout pattern generation. In: 58th ACM/IEEE Design Au- tomation Conference, DAC 2021, San Francisco, CA, USA, December 5-9, 2021. pp. 169–174. IEEE (2021).https://doi.org/10.1109/DAC180...

    2021

  3. [11]

    In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022

    Zhou, Y., Geng, X., Shen, T., Long, G., Jiang, D.: Eventbert: A pre-trained model for event correlation reasoning. In: Proceedings of the ACM Web Conference 2022. pp. 850–859 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    CoRRabs/2303.12961(2023).https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2303.12961, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2303.12961

    Wornow, M., Xu, Y., Thapa, R., Patel, B.S., Steinberg, E., Fleming, S.L., Pf- effer, M.A., Fries, J.A., Shah, N.H.: The shaky foundations of clinical founda- tion models: A survey of large language models and foundation models for emrs. CoRRabs/2303.12961(2023).https://doi.org...

    2023 doi arXiv

  5. [13]

    CoRRabs/2307.06435(2023).https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2307.06435, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.06435

    Naveed, H., Khan, A.U., Qiu, S., Saqib, M., Anwar, S., Usman, M., Barnes, N., Mian, A.: A comprehensive overview of large language models. CoRRabs/2307.06435(2023).https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2307.06435, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2307.06435

    2023 doi arXiv

  6. [14]

    Authorea Preprints1, 1–26 (2023)

    Hadi, M.U., Qureshi, R., Shah, A., Irfan, M., Zafar, A., Shaikh, M.B., Akhtar, N., Wu, J., Mirjalili, S., et al.: Large language models: a comprehensive survey of its applications, challenges, limitations, and future prospects. Authorea Preprints1, 1–26 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    CoRRabs/2210.13966(2022).https://doi.org/10.48550/ ARXIV.2210.13966,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.13966

    Mitchell, M., Krakauer, D.C.: The debate over understanding in ai’s large language models. CoRRabs/2210.13966(2022).https://doi.org/10.48550/ ARXIV.2210.13966,https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2210.13966

    2022 doi arXiv

  8. [16]

    Frontiers Artif

    Zubiaga, A.: Natural language processing in the era of large language models. Frontiers Artif. Intell.6(2023).https://doi.org/10.3389/FRAI.2023.1350306, https://doi.org/10.3389/frai.2023.1350306

    2023

  9. [17]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research27, e59069 (2025)

    Zhang, K., Meng, X., Yan, X., Ji, J., Liu, J., Xu, H., Zhang, H., Liu, D., Wang, J., Wang, X., et al.: Revolutionizing health care: The transformative impact of large language models in medicine. Journal of Medical Internet Research27, e59069 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    Communications Medicine5(1), 26 (2025)

    Busch, F., Hoffmann, L., Rueger, C., van Dijk, E.H., Kader, R., Ortiz-Prado, E., Makowski, M.R., Saba, L., Hadamitzky, M., Kather, J.N., et al.: Current applica- tions and challenges in large language models for patient care: a systematic review. Communications Medicine5(1), 26 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Khan,M.A.,Ayub,U.,Naqvi,S.A.A.,Khakwani,K.Z.R.,binRiazSipra,Z.,Raina, A., Zhou, S., He, H., Saeidi, A., Hasan, B., Rumble, R.B., Bitterman, D.S., Warner, J.L., Zou, J., Tevaarwerk, A.J., Leventakos, K., Kehl, K.L., Palmer, J.M., Murad, M.H., Baral, C., Riaz, I.B.: Collaborativ...

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    CoRRabs/2402.12749(2024).https://doi.org/10.48550/ARXIV.2402.12749, https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2402.12749

    Xie, Q., Chen, Q., Chen, A., Peng, C., Hu, Y., Lin, F., Peng, X., Huang, J., Zhang, J., Keloth, V.K., Zhou, X., He, H., Ohno-Machado, L., Wu, Y., Xu, H., Bian, J.: Me llama: Foundation large language models for medical applications. CoRRabs/2402.12749(2024).https://doi.org/10....

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    Zhou, C., Gong, Q., Zhu, J., Luan, H.: Research and application of large language models in healthcarecurrent development of large language models in the health- care fielda framework for applying large language models and the opportunities and challenges of large language mod...

    2023

  14. [22]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research 26, e52399 (2024)

    Denecke, K., May, R., LLMHealthGroup, Rivera Romero, O.: Potential of large language models in health care: Delphi study. Journal of Medical Internet Research 26, e52399 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    Journal of Medical Internet Research27, e64486 (2025)

    Wang, L., Li, J., Zhuang, B., Huang, S., Fang, M., Wang, C., Li, W., Zhang, M., Gong, S.: Accuracy of large language models when answering clinical research ques- tions: Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Internet Research27, e64486 (2025)

    2025

  16. [24]

    PLOS Digital Health3(11), e0000662 (2024)

    Omar, M., Nadkarni, G.N., Klang, E., Glicksberg, B.S.: Large language models in medicine: A review of current clinical trials across healthcare applications. PLOS Digital Health3(11), e0000662 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Madabushi, H.T., Jones, M.D.: Large language models in healthcare information research: making progress in an emerging field (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology15(3), 1–45 (2024)

    Chang, Y., Wang, X., Wang, J., Wu, Y., Yang, L., Zhu, K., Chen, H., Yi, X., Wang, C., Wang, Y., et al.: A survey on evaluation of large language models. ACM transactions on intelligent systems and technology15(3), 1–45 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.