Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical entity extraction, yet their confidence scores are often miscalibrated, limiting safe deployment in clinical settings. We present a conformal prediction framework that provides finite-sample coverage guarantees for LLM-based extraction across two clinical domains. First, we extract structured entities from 1,000 FDA drug labels across eight sections using GPT-4.1, verified via FactScore-based atomic statement evaluation (97.7% accuracy over 128,906 entities). Second, we extract radiological entities from MIMIC-CXR reports using the RadGraph schema with GPT-4.1 and Llama-4-Maverick, evaluated against physician annotations (entity F1: 0.81 to 0.84). Our central finding is that miscalibration direction reverses across domains: on well-structured FDA labels, models are underconfident, requiring modest conformal thresholds (τ≈0.06), while on free-text radiology reports, models are overconfident, demanding strict thresholds (τ up to 0.99). Despite this heterogeneity, conformal prediction achieves target coverage (≥90%) in both settings with manageable rejection rates (9--13%). These results demonstrate that calibration is not a global model property but depends on document structure, extraction category, and model architecture, motivating domain-specific conformal calibration for safe clinical deployment.
Figures & tables
α
τc
p^min
Rej.%
Cov.
Prec.
0.01
∞
–
100.0
0.000
–
0.03
−0.49
.380
0.0
1.000
0.977
0.05
−0.49
.380
0.0
1.000
0.977
0.10
−0.49
.380
0.0
1.000
0.977
0.15
−0.49
.380
0.0
1.000
0.977
0.20
−0.49
.380
0.0
1.000
0.977
Table 1: FDR-controlled conformal prediction sweep across α for FDA drug label extraction (GPT-4.1, n=110,664 entities, global threshold). At α≥0.03 the global baseline FDR (2.3%) is already below target, so nearly all entities are accepted; per-section thresholds (Table 2 ) reveal the heterogeneity masked by global pooling.
Section
# Entities
Brier ↓
ECE ↓
FactS.
τc
p^min
Rej.%
Cov.
Prec.
Adverse Reactions
63,442
0.013
0.012
2.98
−0.09
.479
0.0
1.000
0.987
Indications & Usage
34,895
0.022
0.018
2.94
0.85
.701
0.0
1.000
0.979
Drug Interactions
7,251
0.051
0.055
2.92
10.52
>.999
59.8
0.400
0.948
Contraindications
2,109
0.048
0.041
2.90
7.65
>.999
41.5
0.590
0.966
Pregnancy
545
0.005
0.004
2.99
2.71
.938
0.4
0.996
0.996
Pediatric Use
1,954
0.236
0.214
2.52
∞
–
100.0
0.000
–
Table 2: Calibration metrics and FDR-controlled conformal prediction for FDA drug label extraction with GPT-4.1 ( α=0.05 , n=1,000 drugs). τc is the per-section FDR threshold in log-odds; p^min=σ(τc) is the equivalent confidence cutoff. FDR control guarantees precision ≥1−α among accepted entities. Warnings section omitted (no valid entities).
Figure 1: Calibration curves for four sections from FDA label extraction with GPT-4.1 ( n=1,000 drugs). Predicted span confidence p^ (geometric mean of token probabilities) versus empirical accuracy. The model is systematically underconfident across most sections: curves lie above the diagonal. Pediatric Use is an exception, exhibiting overconfidence. ECE ranges from 0.012 (Adverse Reactions) to 0.214 (Pediatric Use).
Entity
Relation
Model
Setting
Prec.
Rec.
F1
Prec.
Rec.
F1
GPT-4.1
5-shot
.798
.856
.826
.484
.521
.502
GPT-4.1
0-shot
.787
.710
.746
.301
.252
.274
Llama-4-Maverick
5-shot
.865
.818
.841
.526
.458
.490
Llama-4-Maverick
0-shot
.783
.674
.724
.228
.227
.228
Table 3: RadGraph entity and relation extraction on 100 test reports. Few-shot prompting (5 examples from dev set) substantially improves both entity and relation extraction compared to zero-shot.
Figure 2: Per-label calibration curves for GPT-4.1 and Llama-4-Maverick (5-shot, 100 CXR reports [ 11 ] ). Predicted span confidence p^ versus empirical accuracy across four entity categories. Both models are overconfident (curves below diagonal). Llama-4-Maverick achieves lower ECE overall (0.085 vs. 0.147), while OBS-U remains poorly calibrated for both models.
GPT-4.1
Llama-4-Maverick
α
Rej.%
Cov.
Prec.
Rej.%
Cov.
Prec.
0.05
100.0
0.000
–
100.0
0.000
–
0.10
59.3
0.445
0.876
19.6
0.824
0.870
0.15
41.7
0.617
0.849
0.2
0.998
0.849
0.20
6.8
0.936
0.805
0.2
0.998
0.849
0.25
0.1
0.999
0.802
0.2
0.998
0.849
Table 4: FDR-controlled conformal prediction sweep across α for RadGraph entity extraction (global threshold, 5-shot). At α<0.10 , neither model can guarantee the target precision, resulting in full rejection. The sharp transition at α=0.10 reflects the baseline error rate ( ∼15−20% ); Llama-4-Maverick’s better calibration yields a lower threshold and less rejection at the same α .
GPT-4.1
Llama-4-Maverick
Category
Prec.
Rec.
F1
ECE ↓
τc
p^min
Rej.%
Prec.
Rec.
F1
ECE ↓
τc
p^min
Rej.%
anat-dp
.834
.933
.880
.128
9.92
>.999
57.3
.865
.893
.879
.085
11.11
>.999
41.4
obs-dp
.827
.769
.797
.140
6.45
.998
52.1
.905
.724
.804
.064
0.00
.500
0.2
obs-da
.833
.914
.871
.102
13.12
>.999
62.6
.902
.900
.901
.051
0.00
.500
0.0
obs-u
.305
.648
.415
.525
∞
–
100.0
.444
.580
.502
.396
∞
–
100.0
Table 5: Per-category entity extraction and FDR-controlled conformal prediction on 100 RadGraph test reports ( α=0.10 , 5-shot). τc is the per-category FDR threshold in log-odds; p^min=σ(τc) is the equivalent confidence cutoff. FDR control guarantees precision ≥1−α among accepted entities.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical summarization, but their outputs can omit medically important information and introduce unsupported claims. Existing error-detection methods produce heuristic or uncalibrated scores, providing no formal control over missed errors and no principled way to trade off safety against clinician review burden. We introduce Conformal Assessment for Risk Evaluation (CARE), a post-hoc, model-agnostic safety layer that uses conformal risk control to overlay calibrated omission and hallucination flags onto summaries from any LLM without retraining. CARE provides finite-sample, distribution-free guarantees through two controllers: a hallucination controller that bounds the probability of a document containing any unflagged hallucinated sentence, and an omission controller that bounds the expected fraction of important omissions not surfaced for review. Unlike hallucination detection, omissions depend jointly on whether a source sentence is important and whether it is covered by the summary. We show that calibrating only one dimension can violate the target risk bound, while marginal decompositions remain valid but overly conservative. By jointly calibrating over the full (τ,γ) threshold space, CARE preserves formal guarantees while surfacing up to 5× fewer sentences than alternative calibrated baselines. Across five medical summarization tasks, CARE satisfies the target risk bound at α=0.15 with 95% confidence across 100 calibration/test resplits, using only ~100 labeled documents per domain. In a preliminary clinician study (75 document reviews), calibrated flags improved omission detection by 28.6 percentage points on average. These results show that sentence-level safety guarantees are feasible for LLM-assisted medical summarization and offer a tunable mechanism for balancing residual risk and review effort.
Suhana Bedi, Bridget Lin, Anson Y. Zhou +5
Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University · Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University · Department of Computer Science, Stanford University +2
Large language models (LLMs) are prone to generating factually incorrect outputs. Recent work has applied conformal prediction to provide uncertainty estimates and statistical guarantees for the factuality of LLM generations. However, existing approaches are typically not prompt-adaptive, limiting their ability to capture input-dependent variability. As a result, they may filter out too few items (leading to over-coverage) or too many (under-coverage) for a given task or prompt. We propose an adaptive conformal prediction approach that extends conformal score transformation methods to LLMs, with applications to long-form generation and multiple-choice question answering. This enables prompt-dependent calibration, retaining marginal coverage guarantees while improving conditional coverage. In addition, the approach naturally supports selective prediction, allowing unreliable claims or answer choices to be filtered out in downstream applications. We evaluate our approach on multiple white-box models across diverse domains and show that it significantly outperforms existing baselines in terms of conditional coverage.
Aleksandr Rubashevskii, Dzianis Piatrashyn, Preslav Nakov +1
Mohamed bin Zayed University of Artificial Intelligence (MBZUAI), Abu Dhabi, UAE
Large language models are increasingly deployed in settings where reliability matters, yet output-level uncertainty signals such as token probabilities, entropy, and self-consistency can become brittle under calibration--deployment mismatch. Conformal prediction provides finite-sample validity under exchangeability, but its practical usefulness depends on the quality of the nonconformity score. We propose a conformal framework for LLM question answering that uses internal representations rather than output-facing statistics: specifically, we introduce Layer-Wise Information (LI) scores, which measure how conditioning on the input reshapes predictive entropy across model depth, and use them as nonconformity scores within a standard split conformal pipeline. Across closed-ended and open-domain QA benchmarks, with the clearest gains under cross-domain shift, our method achieves a better validity--efficiency trade-off than strong text-level baselines while maintaining competitive in-domain reliability at the same nominal risk level. These results suggest that internal representations can provide more informative conformal scores when surface-level uncertainty is unstable under distribution shift.
Yanli Wang, Peng Kuang, Xiaoyu Han +2
Imperial College London · Zhejiang University · University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign +1