benchmarks evals
The Second Opinion Improves When the Roles Reconcile
AI Consilium evaluates 3,040 reports across grounding, coherence, management and multidisciplinary synthesis.
Summary
AI Consilium evaluates 3,040 reports across grounding, coherence, management and multidisciplinary synthesis.
A plausible differential diagnosis is not enough for a useful clinical second opinion. AI Consilium uses 300 resolved NEJM–MedQA cases, with 110 for physician reference ratings and judge calibration and 190 held out. Eight pipelines produced independent role-specific opinions and interactive multidisciplinary reports; a physician-calibrated model judge scored 3,040 final reports and their structured primary-role outputs. Structured synthesis improved pooled scores across all five shared criteria, especially prioritization, grounding and coherence, while model identity explained more variation than format. This is a retrospective benchmark using an LLM judge, not clinical validation or medical advice.
Why it matters
AI Consilium evaluates 3,040 reports across grounding, coherence, management and multidisciplinary synthesis.
Limits and context
- A plausible differential diagnosis is not enough for a useful clinical second opinion.
- This is a retrospective benchmark using an LLM judge, not clinical validation or medical advice.
Key claims
AI Consilium evaluates 3,040 reports across grounding, coherence, management and multidisciplinary synthesis.
Qualification: A plausible differential diagnosis is not enough for a useful clinical second opinion.
Evidence: source-2026-10-17-010
Sources
- arXiv preprint 2610.22298, original v1arXiv · primary research
Corrections
No corrections have been recorded for this story.