arXiv:2608.26154v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into digital health platforms to generate summaries of complex medical data. Although these models can improve patient engagement and communication, these systems also raise concerns about accuracy, faithfulness, and safety in clinical contexts. In this study, we evaluate AI-generated summaries within a cancer patient care application using a dual assessment framework. Human domain experts, including oncology clinicians and patient-facing care staff, provided ground-truth evaluations of summary quality along dimensions of accuracy, clinical relevance, and readability. In parallel, we employed LLMs serving as evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge). Some limitations were identified in the generated summaries e.g., occasional omissions and minor inaccuracies. These were systematically analyzed and used to iteratively improve prompt design, grounding, and safety guardrails.
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into digital health platforms to generate summaries of complex medical data. Although these models can improve patient engagement and communication, these systems also raise concerns about accuracy, faithfulness, and safety in clinical contexts. In this study, we evaluate AI-generated summaries within a cancer patient care application using a dual assessment framework. Human domain experts, including oncology clinicians and patient-facing care staff, provided ground-truth evaluations of summary quality along dimensions of accuracy, clinical relevance, and readability. In parallel, we employed LLMs serving as evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge). Some limitations were identified in the generated summaries e.g., occasional omissions and minor inaccuracies. These were systematically analyzed and used to iteratively improve prompt design, grounding, and safety guardrails.
This article has been indexed from cs.AI updates on arXiv.org
Read the original article: