Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 cited by

Evaluation of Large Language Models for Summarization Tasks in the Medical Domain: A Narrative Review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2409.18170 v1 pith:XSKPLRKA submitted 2024-09-26 cs.CL cs.AI

classification cs.CLcs.AI
keywords evaluationlanguageclinicallargemedicalmodelsnarrativereview
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

0 comments
read the original abstract

Large Language Models have advanced clinical Natural Language Generation, creating opportunities to manage the volume of medical text. However, the high-stakes nature of medicine requires reliable evaluation, which remains a challenge. In this narrative review, we assess the current evaluation state for clinical summarization tasks and propose future directions to address the resource constraints of expert human evaluation.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Multi-Agent-as-Judge: Aligning LLM-Agent-Based Automated Evaluation with Multi-Dimensional Human Evaluation

    cs.CL 2025-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    MAJ-EVAL, a document-grounded persona-based multi-agent debate evaluator, correlates more strongly with expert ratings than ROUGE, BERTScore, G-Eval, and ChatEval on children's QA and medical summarization tasks.

  2. Development and Validation of the Provider Documentation Summarization Quality Instrument for Large Language Models

    cs.AI 2025-01 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    PDSQI-9 is a 9-item instrument for rating LLM-generated clinical summaries; in a validation study with 7 physician raters and 779 summary evaluations, it showed Cronbach's alpha 0.879 and ICC 0.867, but Krippendorff's...

Pith tools