AI Rater Discrimination Depends on Scoring Protocol in Complex Clinical Decision-Making

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

Multimodal large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored as automated evaluators in clinical settings, yet their scoring behavior on ordinal clinical scales remains poorly understood. We benchmark three frontier LLM families against supervised deep learning models for scoring Clock Drawing Test (CDT) images on two public datasets using the Shulman rubric. While fully fine-tuned Vision Transformers achieve the best calibration (MAE 0.52, within-1 accuracy 91%), zero-shot LLMs remain competitive on tolerance-based agreement (GPT-5 MAE 0.67, within-1 accuracy 92%) despite higher absolute error. However, per-score analysis reveals that all three LLM families exhibit a pronounced central tendency effect (systematic endpoint compression): predictions are systematically compressed toward the middle of the scale, with over-prediction at the low end (score 0 to 1) and under-prediction at the high end (score 5 to 4). This effect disproportionately affects the clinically critical extremes where accurate scoring most impacts screening decisions for cognitive impairment. Targeted ablations show that neither few-shot exemplars spanning the full score range nor removing clinical terminology from the prompt eliminates the effect. Our findings extend the LLM-as-a-judge bias literature from NLP evaluation to clinical assessment, and highlight the need for calibration-aware evaluation and post-hoc calibration before deploying LLM-based raters in high-stakes screening workflows.

Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM Jury, composed of three frontier AI models, for scoring 3334 diagnoses on 300 real-world low- and middle-income country (LMIC) hospital cases. Both LLM- and clinician-generated diagnoses are scored against expert panel diagnoses across four dimensions: diagnosis, differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and negative treatment risk. The LLM Jury scores are compared with expert and independent re-scoring panel scores to assess error metrics, inter-rater agreement, severe-risk errors, and the effect of post hoc calibration using isotonic regression. In our data, we find that: (i) the uncalibrated LLM Jury scores preserve ordinal agreement with the expert clinician panel scores, but are systematically lower; (ii) the probability of severe-risk errors is lower for the LLM Jury than the human expert re-score panels; (iii) the LLM Jury combined with LLM diagnoses can be used to identify diagnoses at high risk of error, enabling targeted expert review and improved panel efficiency; (iv) the calibrated LLM Jury scores and rankings of diagnosing agents show excellent agreement with those of the primary expert panels; (v) LLM Jury models show no self-preference bias, they did not score diagnoses generated by their own underlying model or models from the same vendor more (or less) favourably than those generated by other models. Together, these results provide evidence that a calibrated LLM Jury is a trustworthy and reliable proxy for expert clinician evaluation in medical AI benchmarking. Confirming these findings in other clinical settings is an important direction for future work.