← 研踪 PaperTrailarXiv:2611.05127 · v1
Towards Multi-Method Evaluation of AI in Health: Integrating Benchmarks, Autoraters, and Expert Evaluation
首次提交 2026-11-04 00:12
版本更新 2026-11-04 00:12
雷达观测 2026-11-04 23:39
摘要
General-purpose generative AI (GenAI) models are being rapidly adopted in healthcare, but they are challenging to assess with traditional evaluation frameworks. These conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges parallel decades of work in evaluating clinician and health system quality and safety. We describe the adaptation of methods from several fields, combined with emerging technical approaches, into a structured, multi-method evaluation framework designed to give well-rounded assessments of GenAI in health at scale. The approach first anchors evaluation to Critical User Journeys (CUJs) to help prioritize out of a large choice space, and maps these to a phased AI system lifecycle (base model development, product development, and post-deployment monitoring), since evaluation at each stage requires different methodological approaches. In this context, the approach then integrates three distinct evaluation methods (closed-question benchmarks, LLM-as-a-judge autoraters, and expert human review) across three core domains: accuracy, safety, and usefulness. Taken together, this approach provides a strategic framework for bridging the gap between benchmarking results and performance in the real world with the goal of supporting decision-making and accountability across development, procurement, and deployment for product teams, health systems, and regulators.
作者备注：16 pages, 1 figure, 2 tables
观测到的版本
相邻记录可能跳过中间版本；首次发现 v2 及以上也会标为版本更新。
v2 · 2026-11-05 02:33 · 最新观测版本
Towards Multi-Method Evaluation of AI in Health: Integrating Benchmarks, Autoraters, and Expert Evaluation
General-purpose generative AI (GenAI) models are being rapidly adopted in healthcare, but they are challenging to assess with traditional evaluation frameworks. These conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges parallel decades of work in evaluating clinician and health system quality and safety. We describe the adaptation of methods from several fields, combined with emerging technical approaches, into a structured, multi-method evaluation framework designed to give well-rounded assessments of GenAI in health at scale. The approach first anchors evaluation to Critical User Journeys (CUJs) to help prioritize out of a large choice space, and maps these to a phased AI system lifecycle (base model development, product development, and post-deployment monitoring), since evaluation at each stage requires different methodological approaches. In this context, the approach then integrates three distinct evaluation methods (closed-question benchmarks, LLM-as-a-judge autoraters, and expert human review) across three core domains: accuracy, safety, and usefulness. Taken together, this approach provides a strategic framework for bridging the gap between benchmarking results and performance in the real world with the goal of supporting decision-making and accountability across development, procurement, and deployment for product teams, health systems, and regulators.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗v1 · 2026-11-04 00:12
Towards Multi-Method Evaluation of AI in Health: Integrating Benchmarks, Autoraters, and Expert Evaluation
General-purpose generative AI (GenAI) models are being rapidly adopted in healthcare, but they are challenging to assess with traditional evaluation frameworks. These conceptual, methodological, and practical challenges parallel decades of work in evaluating clinician and health system quality and safety. We describe the adaptation of methods from several fields, combined with emerging technical approaches, into a structured, multi-method evaluation framework designed to give well-rounded assessments of GenAI in health at scale. The approach first anchors evaluation to Critical User Journeys (CUJs) to help prioritize out of a large choice space, and maps these to a phased AI system lifecycle (base model development, product development, and post-deployment monitoring), since evaluation at each stage requires different methodological approaches. In this context, the approach then integrates three distinct evaluation methods (closed-question benchmarks, LLM-as-a-judge autoraters, and expert human review) across three core domains: accuracy, safety, and usefulness. Taken together, this approach provides a strategic framework for bridging the gap between benchmarking results and performance in the real world with the goal of supporting decision-making and accountability across development, procurement, and deployment for product teams, health systems, and regulators.
查看此版本解读 →查看此版本原文 ↗