# Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

arXiv: https://arxiv.org/abs/2606.05436 · HTML: https://mlsanity.com/paper/2606.05436/

## Key facts

- No citing papers in the map yet (data through 14 Oct 2026).
- Builds on 14 of its 27 references that are in the map.
- First posted on arXiv 3 Jun 2026.

## Builds on (most cited first, 14 of 14)

- [Language Models are Few-Shot Learners](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2005.14165/) (2020)
- [GPT-4 Technical Report](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.08774/) (2023)
- [Scaling Laws for Neural Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2001.08361/) (2020)
- [A Survey on Hallucination in Large Language Models: Principles, Taxonomy, Challenges, and Open Questions](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2311.05232/) (2023)
- [YaRN: Efficient Context Window Extension of Large Language Models](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2309.00071/) (2023)
- [Zero-Shot Learning -- A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly](https://mlsanity.com/paper/1707.00600/) (2017)
- [Almanac: Retrieval-Augmented Language Models for Clinical Medicine](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2303.01229/) (2023)
- [Towards Conversational Diagnostic AI](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2401.05654/) (2024)
- [MedAlign: A Clinician-Generated Dataset for Instruction Following with Electronic Medical Records](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2308.14089/) (2023)
- [DALK: Dynamic Co-Augmentation of LLMs and KG to answer Alzheimer's Disease Questions with Scientific Literature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2405.04819/) (2024)
- [MedCaseReasoning: Evaluating and learning diagnostic reasoning from clinical case reports](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.11733/) (2025)
- [Zero-Shot Clinical Trial Patient Matching with LLMs](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2402.05125/) (2024)
- [Clinfo.ai: An Open-Source Retrieval-Augmented Large Language Model System for Answering Medical Questions using Scientific Literature](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2310.16146/) (2023)
- [Can Large Language Models Match the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews?](https://mlsanity.com/paper/2505.22787/) (2025)

## Abstract (arXiv)

Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care. Yet clinicians face increasing challenges due to limited time with patients and a rapidly growing volume of published articles. Although retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in clinical summarization, human evaluations of their effectiveness in synthesizing broader scientific literature and direct comparisons to expert-written syntheses remain scarce. We constructed a RAG-based agentic AI framework using three state-of-the-art LLMs: Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1. A headache specialist created 13 questions, three for prompt optimization and ten for evaluation. Ten headache specialists across the United States and Canada each wrote a summary for one question, yielding four summaries per question (expert, Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama). The experts, blinded to authorship, critically evaluated the summaries, excluding the topic for which they wrote a summary, based on correctness, completeness, conciseness, and clinical utility, scoring each from 1 to 10 using standardized rubrics. They also ranked the summaries by preference and indicated whether they believed each summary was written by an expert or an LLM. Our study, comparing LLM- and expert-written literature summaries evaluated by headache specialists, showed that expert-written summaries were preferred, although experts sometimes found it challenging to distinguish between human- and AI-generated summaries. We also identified key expert-valued features beyond standard evaluation metrics that can guide future refinement of both human and AI literature summarization pipelines.