Background: The potential of large language models (LLMs) to automate and support pharmacoepidemiologic study design is an emerging area of interest, yet their reliability remains insufficiently characterized. General-purpose LLMs often display inaccuracies, while the comparative performance of specialized biomedical LLMs in this domain remains unknown. Methods: This study evaluated general-purpose LLMs (GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1) versus biomedically fine-tuned LLMs (QuantFactory/Bio-Medical-Llama-3-8B-GGUF and Irathernotsay/qwen2-1.5B-medical_qa-Finetune) using 46 protocols (2018-2024) from the HMA-EMA Catalogue and Sentinel System. Performance was assessed across relevance, logic of justification, and ontology-code agreement across multiple coding systems using Least-to-Most (LTM) and Active Prompting strategies. Results: GPT-4o and DeepSeek-R1 paired with LTM prompting achieved the highest relevance and logic of justification scores, with GPT-4o-LTM reaching a median relevance score of 4 in 8 of 9 questions for HMA-EMA protocols. Biomedical LLMs showed lower relevance overall and frequently generated insufficient justification. All LLMs demonstrated limited proficiency in ontology-code mapping, although LTM provided the most consistent improvements in reasoning stability. Conclusion: Off-the-shelf general-purpose LLMs currently offer superior support for pharmacoepidemiologic design compared to biomedical LLMs. Prompt strategy strongly influenced LLM performance.
Large language models (LLMs) have saturated standard medical benchmarks that test factual recall, yet their ability to perform higher-order reasoning, such as synthesizing evidence from multiple sources, remains critically under-explored. To address this gap, we introduce MedMeta, the first benchmark designed to evaluate an LLM's ability to generate conclusions from medical meta-analyses using only the abstracts of cited studies. MedMeta comprises 81 meta-analyses from PubMed (2018--2025) and evaluates models using two distinct workflows: a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (Golden-RAG) setting with ground-truth abstracts, and a Parametric-only approach relying on internal knowledge. Our evaluation framework is validated by a well-structured analysis showing our LLM-as-a-judge protocol strongly aligns with human expert ratings, as evidenced by high Pearson's r correlation (0.81) and Bland-Altman analysis revealing negligible systematic bias, establishing it as a reliable proxy for scalable evaluation. Our findings underscore the critical importance of information grounding: the Golden-RAG workflow consistently and significantly outperforms the Parametric-only approach across models. In contrast, the benefits of domain-specific fine-tuning are marginal and largely neutralized when external material is provided. Furthermore, stress tests show that all models, regardless of architecture, fail to identify and reject negated evidence, highlighting a critical vulnerability in current RAG systems. Notably, even under ideal RAG conditions, current LLMs achieve only slightly above-average performance (~2.7/5.0). MedMeta provides a challenging new benchmark for evidence synthesis and demonstrates that for clinical applications, developing robust RAG systems is a more promising direction than model specialization alone.
Inpatient medication recommendation requires clinicians to repeatedly select specific medications, doses, and routes as a patient's condition evolves. Existing benchmarks formulate this task as admission-level prediction over coarse drug codes with multi-hot diagnostic and procedure code inputs, failing to capture the per-timepoint, information-rich nature of real prescribing. We propose RxEval, a prescription-level benchmark that evaluates LLM prescribing capability by multiple-choice questions: each question presents a detailed patient profile and time-ordered clinical trajectory, requiring selection of specific medication-dose-route triples from real prescriptions and patient-specific distractors generated via reasoning-chain perturbation. RxEval comprises 1,547 questions spanning 584 patients, 18 diagnostic categories, and 969 unique medications. Evaluation of 16 LLMs shows that RxEval is both challenging and discriminative: F1 ranges from 45.18 to 77.10 across models, and the best Exact Match is only 46.10%. Error analysis reveals that even frontier models may overlook stated patient information and fail to derive clinical conclusions.
Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and not harm. This evaluation can be more challenging than traditional machine learning for many reasons, including probabilistic and open-ended outputs, and behavior that shifts with prompt design and accumulated context. This review covers four key areas of LLM evaluation: principles of study design, statistical methods, capability evaluation and clinical context evaluation. Capability evaluation considers different benchmarks, including multiple-choice, agentic and multi-turn benchmarks, alongside operational metrics like token usage. Clinical context evaluation addresses establishing accuracy of free text outputs, such as human review and LLM-as-a-judge, and clinical trial approaches. Across sections, we describe underlying concepts and potential pitfalls, while emphasizing the importance of aligning evaluation methods with the research question. Together, this article aims to provide a pragmatic basis for designing and executing rigorous evaluations of healthcare LLMs.