AI-assisted peer review is increasingly discussed and adopted as a tool to support the scientific publishing process, yet there is little systematic understanding of how publication venues regulate its use or of how capable current AI review systems are. We address these questions by first surveying reviewer-facing AI policies across 111 leading AI/NLP conferences and medical journals, revealing substantial regulation differences between the two communities. Second, we evaluate AI-generated peer reviews at ICLR 2026 and Nature Communications using a novel dataset comprising original manuscript submissions and several hundred human- and machine-generated reviews. We compare reviews produced by open-source and proprietary models using complementary evaluation metrics, including LLM-as-a-Judge, score alignment, granularity, and overlap with human reviewers'concerns. Our results show that current LLMs can generate detailed and fluent reviews but exhibit systematic weaknesses, such as overly positive recommendations, generic criticism, and uneven evidence grounding. We demonstrate that aggregate quality scores alone can overestimate review quality and argue for multi-dimensional evaluation of AI-generated peer reviews.
Alexander M. Fichtl, Lukas Ellinger, Josefin Kelber et al.· 0 citations
Clinical diagnosis is fundamentally interactive and incremental, yet the dominant paradigm for evaluating Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine remains static QA benchmarks or template-based dialogues. These benchmarks say little about whether a model can serve as a diagnostic agent in a dynamic clinical encounter, with LLMs showing significant accuracy and reliability degradation in multi-turn settings. To address this issue, we present MTDiag, a large multi-turn diagnostic dialogue dataset constructed from three heterogeneous sources: DDXPlus, MIMIC-IV, and published case reports (AJCR), covering common ED presentations as well as long-tail rare and atypical conditions. All cases are normalized into a canonical schema anchored in the most comprehensive and widely-adopted medical knowledge bases (UMLS concept identifiers, with ICD-10 diagnosis codes). We release the schema, a UserLM-8B-based utterance-generation pipeline, and the physician-validated dataset that converts structured clinical evidence into natural-language utterances. Importantly, we introduce and motivate clinical knowledge-grounded metrics for evaluating LLMs as diagnostic agents, beyond diagnostic accuracy, for the task of multi-turn differential diagnosis.
Pia Chouayfati, Alexander M. Fichtl, Miriam Anschütz et al.· SIGDIAL Conferences· 0 citations
