Clinical warrant in medical LLM evaluation.

IF 5.2 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Frontiers in digital health Pub Date : 2026-09-10 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.3389/fdgth.2026.1918724
Murat Sariyar
{"title":"Clinical warrant in medical LLM evaluation.","authors":"Murat Sariyar","doi":"10.3389/fdgth.2026.1918724","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Medical large language models are evaluated through factuality, physician preference, source support, retrieval quality, safety, and clinical utility. These measures describe content and performance while leaving unresolved whether a generated claim meets the requirements for a specified clinical use. This article proposes <i>clinical warrant</i> as a use-specific judgment for a particular output-use pair. Clinical use includes reliance within a patient-related encounter, task, or care pathway, including education that can shape understanding or later action. The proposed use and the standards used to judge it are documented separately. For action-guiding outputs, clinical appropriateness is a gateway. Five further conditions examine role, case information, evidence, preserved limits, and authority/accountability. The framework asks whether these requirements are met at the point of proposed reliance, records failed or unresolved conditions and the resulting disposition, and tests whether a relevant change stops or redirects use. Fifteen constructed examples across five domains distinguish established, not established, and indeterminate warrant.</p>","PeriodicalId":73078,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in digital health","volume":"8 ","pages":"1918724"},"PeriodicalIF":5.2000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13601723/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdgth.2026.1918724","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Medical large language models are evaluated through factuality, physician preference, source support, retrieval quality, safety, and clinical utility. These measures describe content and performance while leaving unresolved whether a generated claim meets the requirements for a specified clinical use. This article proposes clinical warrant as a use-specific judgment for a particular output-use pair. Clinical use includes reliance within a patient-related encounter, task, or care pathway, including education that can shape understanding or later action. The proposed use and the standards used to judge it are documented separately. For action-guiding outputs, clinical appropriateness is a gateway. Five further conditions examine role, case information, evidence, preserved limits, and authority/accountability. The framework asks whether these requirements are met at the point of proposed reliance, records failed or unresolved conditions and the resulting disposition, and tests whether a relevant change stops or redirects use. Fifteen constructed examples across five domains distinguish established, not established, and indeterminate warrant.

医学法学硕士评价的临床保证。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
13 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书