Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models

Assessing whether an article supports an assertion is essential for hallucination detection and claim verification. While large language models (LLMs) have the potential to automate this task, achieving strong performance requires frontier models such as GPT-5 that are prohibitively expensive to deploy at scale. To efficiently perform biomedical evidence attribution, we present Med-V1, a family of small language models with only three billion parameters. Trained on high-quality synthetic data newly developed in this study, Med-V1 substantially outperforms (+27.0% to +71.3%) its base models on five biomedical benchmarks unified into a verification format. Despite its smaller size, Med-V1 performs comparably to frontier LLMs such as GPT-5, along with high-quality explanations for its predictions. We use Med-V1 to conduct a first-of-its-kind use case study that quantifies hallucinations in LLM-generated answers under different citation instructions. Results show that the format instruction strongly affects citation validity and hallucination, with GPT-5 generating more claims but exhibiting hallucination rates similar to GPT-4o. Additionally, we present a second use case showing that Med-V1 can automatically identify high-stakes evidence misattributions in clinical practice guidelines, revealing potentially negative public health impacts that are otherwise challenging to identify at scale. Overall, Med-V1 provides an efficient and accurate lightweight alternative to frontier LLMs for practical, real-world biomedical evidence attribution. Med-V1 is available at https://github.com/NLM-DIR/Med-V1.

Large language models (LLMs) are trained on enormous amounts of data and encode knowledge in their parameters. We propose a pipeline to elicit causal relationships from LLMs. Specifically, (i) we sample many documents from LLMs on a given topic, (ii) we extract an event list from from each document, (iii) we group events that appear across documents into canonical events, (iv) we construct a binary indicator vector for each document over canonical events, and (v) we estimate candidate causal graphs using causal discovery methods. Our approach does not guarantee real-world causality. Rather, it provides a framework for presenting the set of causal hypotheses that LLMs can plausibly assume, as an inspectable set of variables and candidate graphs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy rather than reasoning about interventions, mechanisms, harms, evidence, and uncertainty. We propose a reproducible, graph-centered evaluation framework for intervention-oriented LLM behavior in healthcare and stress-test it in a cardiovascular pilot. The framework has four components: (i) a domain causal knowledge graph in which assertions are first-class, provenance-preserving nodes with stable identifiers; (ii) a scenario-conditioned subgraph extraction step that, given any clinical scenario, retrieves the relevant reified-assertion subgraph; (iii) four controlled grounding conditions that vary how the retrieved subgraph is composed into the model's context (ungrounded C1, knowledge-graph C2, causal-graph C3, integrated C4); and (iv) an automated scoring pipeline, anchored on assertion identifiers, that computes intervention accuracy, and other evaluation measures on a single pass. To test the framework, we built a category-balanced scenario generator across eight reasoning failure modes and instantiated it on a cardiovascular graph. The metric panel discriminates conditions along interpretable, non-redundant axes: C4 obtains the strongest causal edge F1 (0.838), adverse-effect F1 (0.833), evidence accuracy (0.738), and unsupported claim rate (0.114), while C1 obtains the highest raw intervention accuracy (0.948) with no measurable causal or evidential grounding.