-
Introducing Answered with Evidence -- a framework for evaluating whether LLM responses to biomedical questions are founded in evidence
Authors:
Julian D Baldwin,
Christina Dinh,
Arjun Mukerji,
Neil Sanghavi,
Saurabh Gombar
Abstract:
The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for biomedical question answering raises concerns about the accuracy and evidentiary support of their responses. To address this, we present Answered with Evidence, a framework for evaluating whether LLM-generated answers are grounded in scientific literature. We analyzed thousands of physician-submitted questions using a comparative pipeline that in…
▽ More
The growing use of large language models (LLMs) for biomedical question answering raises concerns about the accuracy and evidentiary support of their responses. To address this, we present Answered with Evidence, a framework for evaluating whether LLM-generated answers are grounded in scientific literature. We analyzed thousands of physician-submitted questions using a comparative pipeline that included: (1) Alexandria, fka the Atropos Evidence Library, a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system based on novel observational studies, and (2) two PubMed-based retrieval-augmented systems (System and Perplexity). We found that PubMed-based systems provided evidence-supported answers for approximately 44% of questions, while the novel evidence source did so for about 50%. Combined, these sources enabled reliable answers to over 70% of biomedical queries. As LLMs become increasingly capable of summarizing scientific content, maximizing their value will require systems that can accurately retrieve both published and custom-generated evidence or generate such evidence in real time.
△ Less
Submitted 30 June, 2025;
originally announced July 2025.
-
RWESummary: A Framework and Test for Choosing Large Language Models to Summarize Real-World Evidence (RWE) Studies
Authors:
Arjun Mukerji,
Michael L. Jackson,
Jason Jones,
Neil Sanghavi
Abstract:
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been extensively evaluated for general summarization tasks as well as medical research assistance, but they have not been specifically evaluated for the task of summarizing real-world evidence (RWE) from structured output of RWE studies. We introduce RWESummary, a proposed addition to the MedHELM framework (Bedi, Cui, Fuentes, Unell et al., 2025) to enable benchma…
▽ More
Large Language Models (LLMs) have been extensively evaluated for general summarization tasks as well as medical research assistance, but they have not been specifically evaluated for the task of summarizing real-world evidence (RWE) from structured output of RWE studies. We introduce RWESummary, a proposed addition to the MedHELM framework (Bedi, Cui, Fuentes, Unell et al., 2025) to enable benchmarking of LLMs for this task. RWESummary includes one scenario and three evaluations covering major types of errors observed in summarization of medical research studies and was developed using Atropos Health proprietary data. Additionally, we use RWESummary to compare the performance of different LLMs in our internal RWE summarization tool. At the time of publication, with 13 distinct RWE studies, we found the Gemini 2.5 models performed best overall (both Flash and Pro). We suggest RWESummary as a novel and useful foundation model benchmark for real-world evidence study summarization.
△ Less
Submitted 23 June, 2025;
originally announced June 2025.
-
Answering real-world clinical questions using large language model based systems
Authors:
Yen Sia Low,
Michael L. Jackson,
Rebecca J. Hyde,
Robert E. Brown,
Neil M. Sanghavi,
Julian D. Baldwin,
C. William Pike,
Jananee Muralidharan,
Gavin Hui,
Natasha Alexander,
Hadeel Hassan,
Rahul V. Nene,
Morgan Pike,
Courtney J. Pokrzywa,
Shivam Vedak,
Adam Paul Yan,
Dong-han Yao,
Amy R. Zipursky,
Christina Dinh,
Philip Ballentine,
Dan C. Derieg,
Vladimir Polony,
Rehan N. Chawdry,
Jordan Davies,
Brigham B. Hyde
, et al. (2 additional authors not shown)
Abstract:
Evidence to guide healthcare decisions is often limited by a lack of relevant and trustworthy literature as well as difficulty in contextualizing existing research for a specific patient. Large language models (LLMs) could potentially address both challenges by either summarizing published literature or generating new studies based on real-world data (RWD). We evaluated the ability of five LLM-bas…
▽ More
Evidence to guide healthcare decisions is often limited by a lack of relevant and trustworthy literature as well as difficulty in contextualizing existing research for a specific patient. Large language models (LLMs) could potentially address both challenges by either summarizing published literature or generating new studies based on real-world data (RWD). We evaluated the ability of five LLM-based systems in answering 50 clinical questions and had nine independent physicians review the responses for relevance, reliability, and actionability. As it stands, general-purpose LLMs (ChatGPT-4, Claude 3 Opus, Gemini Pro 1.5) rarely produced answers that were deemed relevant and evidence-based (2% - 10%). In contrast, retrieval augmented generation (RAG)-based and agentic LLM systems produced relevant and evidence-based answers for 24% (OpenEvidence) to 58% (ChatRWD) of questions. Only the agentic ChatRWD was able to answer novel questions compared to other LLMs (65% vs. 0-9%). These results suggest that while general-purpose LLMs should not be used as-is, a purpose-built system for evidence summarization based on RAG and one for generating novel evidence working synergistically would improve availability of pertinent evidence for patient care.
△ Less
Submitted 29 June, 2024;
originally announced July 2024.
