Expert of Experts Verification and Alignment (EVAL) Framework for Large Language Models Safety in Gastroenterology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Large language models generate plausible text responses to medical questions, but inaccurate responses pose significant risks in medical decision-making. Grading LLM outputs to determine the best model or answer is time-consuming and impractical in clinical settings; therefore, we introduce EVAL (Expert-of-Experts Verification and Alignment) to streamline this process and enhance LLM safety for upper gastrointestinal bleeding (UGIB). We evaluated OpenAI's GPT-3.5/4/4o/o1-preview, Anthropic's Claude-3-Opus, Meta's LLaMA-2 (7B/13B/70B), and Mistral AI's Mixtral (7B) across 27 configurations, including zero-shot baseline, retrieval-augmented generation, and supervised fine-tuning. EVAL uses similarity-based ranking and a reward model trained on human-graded responses for rejection sampling. Among the employed similarity metrics, Fine-Tuned ColBERT achieved the highest alignment with human performance across three separate datasets (ρ = 0.81-0.91). The reward model replicated human grading with 87.9% of cases across temperature settings and significantly improved accuracy through rejection sampling by 8.36% overall. EVAL offers scalable potential to assess accuracy for high-stakes medical decision-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".