MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410477368 · doi:10.1542/pedsos.2025-000485

PedMedQA: Comparing Large Language Model Accuracy in Pediatric and Adult Medicine

2025· article· en· W4410477368 on OpenAlexafffund
Nikhil Jaiswal, Yuanchao Ma, Bertrand Lebouché, Dan Poenaru, Esli Osmanlliu

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatrics Open Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMachine Learning in Healthcare
Canadian institutionsMila - Quebec Artificial Intelligence InstituteMontreal Children's HospitalMcGill UniversityPolytechnique MontréalCentre for Advancing Health OutcomesMcGill University Health Centre
FundersFonds de Recherche du Québec - SantéCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsComputer scienceNatural language processing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to revolutionize healthcare, including aiding in clinical decision-making. However, recent work suggests that LLM performance in pediatric cases may be weaker than adult cases. A key limitation in evaluating these differences is the lack of pediatric-specific benchmarks, making it difficult to systematically assess how well LLMs generalize to pediatric scenarios.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesOpen science
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.834
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.356 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatrics Open ScienceSame topicMachine Learning in HealthcareFrench-language works237,207