ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Leveraging computerized adaptive testing for cost-effective evaluation of large language models in medical benchmarking.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in healthcare, yet their evaluation relies predominantly on static benchmarks that are costly, contamination-prone, and lack calibrated measurement properties for fine-grained performance tracking. We developed and validated a computerized adaptive testing (CAT) framework grounded in item response theory to enable scalable, psychometrically rigorous assessment of standardized medical knowledge in LLMs. A two-phase study comprising Monte Carlo simulations and empirical evaluation of 38 LLMs was conducted between July and September 2025. The CAT protocol achieved a near-perfect correlation with full-bank results (r = 0.988) using only 1.3% of items. Evaluation time decreased from 6.85 hours to 8.4 min per model, and token usage dropped from 1.77 million to 0.03 million. Model rankings were fully preserved (Spearman's ρ = 1.0). At current API pricing, per-model evaluation costs fell from approximately $1,475 to under $5. This adaptive methodology serves as an essential pre- screening and continuous monitoring tool under a standardized testing protocol. Crucially, it is not a substitute for real-world clinical validation or safety-oriented prospective studies; rather, it enables developers and healthcare institutions to implement rigorous, high-frequency, evidence-based evaluation of foundational knowledge prior to more resource-intensive downstream testing.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.