Srinivasagam, Prabha

Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in patient-facing clinical applications, creating a need for scalable methods to evaluate the accuracy, safety, and appropriateness of their responses. Although physician review remains the reference standard, it is resource-intensive and difficult to scale. Objective: To develop and clinically validate an LLM-as-a-judge framework for evaluating responses to patients’ periprocedural questions. Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 1285 patient–AIVA interactions from 112 patients across two Mayo Clinic sites and multiple surgical specialties. Physician reviewers classified interactions using a predefined true-positive (TP), false-negative (FN), true-negative (TN), and false-positive (FP) framework. The finalized LLM judge independently evaluated the same interactions. Agreement was assessed using four-class and category-specific agreement, Cohen’s kappa, and a secondary binary analysis of response correctness. Results: Overall, four-class agreement was 93.1% (95% CI, 91.7–94.5%), with Cohen’s κ = 0.852 (95% CI, 0.823–0.882). Category-specific agreement was 94.1% for TP, 90.7% for FN, 95.5% for TN, and 84.9% for FP classifications. In the binary correctness analysis, accuracy was 93.4% (95% CI, 92.0–94.7%), sensitivity 94.6%, specificity 90.2%, precision 96.2%, and F1-score 0.954. McNemar’s test demonstrated no significant asymmetry between paired classifications (p = 0.11). Conclusions: A clinically grounded LLM judge closely approximated physician evaluation of patient-facing AI responses. These findings support its potential as a scalable assistive monitoring tool while preserving physician oversight for uncertain or safety-sensitive interactions.

(1) Background: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in healthcare but are constrained by hallucinations, static knowledge, and limited domain specificity. Fine-tuning (FT) and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) offer complementary solutions, with FT embedding domain reasoning and RAG enabling dynamic, up-to-date knowledge access. Hybrid FT + RAG frameworks have been proposed to improve factual accuracy and clinical reliability. This scoping review synthesizes current evidence on such hybrids in healthcare AI. (2) Methods: The search across PubMed, IEEE Xplore, Google Scholar, and Embase identified studies implementing explicit FT + RAG hybrids in healthcare or biomedical tasks. Eligible studies reported empirical evaluations of LLM performance or behavior. Data were extracted on base models, FT strategies, RAG architectures, applications, and performance outcomes. (3) Results: Seven studies met inclusion criteria. FT + RAG systems consistently outperformed FT-only or RAG-only approaches across QA, clinical summarization, report generation, and decision support tasks. Parameter-efficient FT methods (e.g., LoRA) were common, while RAG implementations varied (dense, hybrid, hierarchical, multimodal, federated). Reported benefits included improved accuracy, reduced hallucination, and greater clinician preference and feasibility in protected settings. (4) Conclusions: FT + RAG frameworks represent a promising direction for clinically grounded healthcare AI, combining domain-specific reasoning with transparent, up-to-date retrieval. Future work should prioritize standardized evaluation, workflow integration, and governance to enable safe deployment.