analiza aiqbench
This study reveals significant variance in how general-purpose LLMs retrieve clinical evidence compared to human experts, with ChatGPT outperforming Claude and Gemini across different simulated user roles. The findings indicate that while model architecture influences retrieval accuracy, the prompt's framing of a "researcher" role yields better results than simulating patient or clinician perspectives. Crucially, sample size emerged as the strongest predictor for identifying relevant studies, suggesting data volume constraints heavily limit current chatbot utility in medical literature synthesis.
Do AI chatbots find what experts would? Effects of model, user role, and sample size on study retrieval for medical questions
arXiv:2608.13786v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to answer clinical questions with citations to relevant clinical studies. Prior research has largely focused on citation fabrication, leaving a gap in evaluating the quality of retrieved studies and the factors driving their selection. In this study, we evaluated three general-purpose LLM chatbots: Claude Sonnet 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and ChatGPT GPT-5.5. We prompted the models with clinical questions adapted from 20 review questions in Issues 6 and 7 of the 2026 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, simulating patient, clinician, and evidence-synthesis researcher roles. Each chatbot was queried under each user role with four independent repetitions, yielding 720 responses. Each chatbot was asked to support its answers with primary clinical citations, which we benchmarked against the included and excluded study sets of the Cochrane reviews. On average, a chatbot response retrieved 39.2% $\pm$ 29.8% of Cochrane included studies, while citing 5.0% $\pm$ 9.4% of excluded studies. Recall of Cochrane included studies varied significantly by model and user role. ChatGPT achieved higher recall than Claude or Gemini (63.1% $\pm$ 29.5% vs. 37.0% $\pm$ 23.8% vs. 17.3% $\pm$ 13.1%; $p=2.0\times10^{-5}$). The researcher role yielded higher recall than the clinician or patient roles (42.8% $\pm$ 30.8% vs. 38.6% $\pm$ 28.9% vs. 36.1% $\pm$ 29.3%; $p=2.0\times10^{-5}$). Controlling for publication year, citations per year, and open-access status, sample size was the only independently significant predictor of retrieval (odds ratio 1.80 per 1-unit increase in log sample size, 95% CI 1.37-2.36, $p=2.34\times10^{-5}$). These findings suggest that while LLM chatbots can retrieve some studies identified by expert reviewers, their performance varies by model and user role, and they exhibit a bias toward clinical trials with larger sample sizes.
Title:Do AI chatbots find what experts would? Effects of model, user role, and sample size on study retrieval for medical questions
Abstract:Large language model (LLM) chatbots are increasingly used to answer clinical questions with citations to relevant clinical studies. Prior research has largely focused on citation fabrication, leaving a gap in evaluating the quality of retrieved studies and the factors driving their selection. In this study, we evaluated three general-purpose LLM chatbots: Claude Sonnet 5, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and ChatGPT GPT-5.5. We prompted the models with clinical questions adapted from 20 review questions in Issues 6 and 7 of the 2026 Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, simulating patient, clinician, and evidence-synthesis researcher roles. Each chatbot was queried under each user role with four independent repetitions, yielding 720 responses. Each chatbot was asked to support its answers with primary clinical citations, which we benchmarked against the included and excluded study sets of the Cochrane reviews. On average, a chatbot response retrieved 39.2% $\pm$ 29.8% of Cochrane included studies, while citing 5.0% $\pm$ 9.4% of excluded studies. Recall of Cochrane included studies varied significantly by model and user role. ChatGPT achieved higher recall than Claude or Gemini (63.1% $\pm$ 29.5% vs. 37.0% $\pm$ 23.8% vs. 17.3% $\pm$ 13.1%; $p=2.0\times10^{-5}$). The researcher role yielded higher recall than the clinician or patient roles (42.8% $\pm$ 30.8% vs. 38.6% $\pm$ 28.9% vs. 36.1% $\pm$ 29.3%; $p=2.0\times10^{-5}$). Controlling for publication year, citations per year, and open-access status, sample size was the only independently significant predictor of retrieval (odds ratio 1.80 per 1-unit increase in log sample size, 95% CI 1.37-2.36, $p=2.34\times10^{-5}$). These findings suggest that while LLM chatbots can retrieve some studies identified by expert reviewers, their performance varies by model and user role, and they exhibit a bias toward clinical trials with larger sample sizes.
Information Retrieval (cs.IR); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2608.13786 [cs.IR]
(or arXiv:2608.13786v1 [cs.IR] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.13786 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.
Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.
Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 401 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026
The basic argument for making AI better at moral philosophy
LessWrong · 14 oct. 2026
[AINews] not much happened today
Latent Space · 18 sept. 2026
Links #3: 2026/06 Part 1
LessWrong · 15 iun. 2026