Evaluating AI Generated Summaries for Cancer Patients
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being integrated into digital health platforms to generate summaries of complex medical data. Although these models can improve patient engagement and communication, these systems also raise concerns about accuracy, faithfulness, and safety in clinical contexts. In this study, we evaluate AI-generated summaries within a cancer patient care application using a dual assessment framework. Human domain experts, including oncology clinicians and patient-facing care staff, provided ground-truth evaluations of summary quality along dimensions of accuracy, clinical relevance, and readability. In parallel, we employed LLMs serving as evaluators (LLM-as-a-judge). Some limitations were identified in the generated summaries e.g., occasional omissions and minor inaccuracies. These were systematically analyzed and used to iteratively improve prompt design, grounding, and safety guardrails.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 10 of its 28 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 3 Jul 2026.
Builds on
10 of 28 references.
References · 10
- 2020Retrieval-Augmented Generation for Knowledge-Intensive NLP Taskscited by 9,160
- 2022Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledgecited by 1,807
- 2019PEGASUS: Pre-training with Extracted Gap-sentences for Abstractive Summarizationcited by 1,100
- 2020On Faithfulness and Factuality in Abstractive Summarizationcited by 895
- 2021Understanding Factuality in Abstractive Summarization with FRANK: A Benchmark for Factuality Metricscited by 285
- 2017Why We Need New Evaluation Metrics for NLGcited by 232
- 2025Medical Hallucinations in Foundation Models and Their Impact on Healthcarecited by 89
- 2023Creating Trustworthy LLMs: Dealing with Hallucinations in Healthcare AIcited by 33
- 2021Attention-based Clinical Note Summarizationcited by 16
- 2025Bias in Large Language Models Across Clinical Applications: A Systematic Reviewcited by 6
Built on by
Not cited yet.