OpenEvidence (OE) is a retrieval-augmented clinical AI tool. We evaluated the references OE returned to 150 standardized prompts across five specialties, analyzing all 4979 citations. No reference was confirmed as fabricated; three abstracts had attribution errors. Most references were recent and high-impact, though jo...
Tami Lotan, Mahmud Omar, Y. Barash et al.· npj Health Systems· 0 citations
Large language models for medical consultation are often evaluated after a clinical problem has already been made clear, although real consultations may begin with a vague, minimized, or misframed concern. We evaluated three API models across four physician-authored, multi-turn vignettes under baseline and entry-to-car...
Yining Hua, C. Ayubcha, Hongbin Na et al.· 0 citations
Before AI-assisted triage enters rheumatology referral pathways, systems should separate objective clinical evidence from interpretive framing, and urgency and psychological attribution should be treated as auditable safety signals.
Mahmud Omar, M. Naffaa, R. Agbareia et al.· Rheumatology· 0 citations
Current evidence does not support the use of LLMs for diagnosis, treatment selection, or patient education in AD/MCI without clinician oversight, and are further limited by small heterogeneous evaluations, sparse hallucination measurement, and absence of prospective clinical validation.
Y. Adiniaev, Mahmud Omar, Oved Daniel et al.· Neurological Sciences· 0 citations
Under this benchmark, OpenEvidence produced fewer missed emergencies than the historical ChatGPT Health comparison, while errors concentrated in over-triage and evidence-seeking refusal.
Eric Jia, Mahmud Omar, Y. Barash et al.· International Journal of Med...· 0 citations
We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads.
See our Cookie Policy.
