ArticleAnaesthesiology intensive therapy2026
Effect of evaluation prompt strategies on LLM-as-a-judge reliability in critical care.
Article in Anaesthesiology intensive therapy, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionLarge language model (LLM)-as-a-judge systems offer scalable evaluation of artificial intelligence (AI)-generated clinical outputs, yet their susceptibility to prompt variability raises concerns regarding reproducibility and alignment with expert judgement. This study examined whether evaluation prompt strategies influence scoring patterns and concordance with clinical raters in critical care. MATERIAL AND
methodsThis post-hoc analysis used 90 structured clinical reports generated in a prior study using an XGBoost ICU mortality prediction model trained on the MIMIC-IV database. GPT-4o (Azure AI, version 2024-11-20) produced structured interpretations from risk estimates and SHAP attributions. These outputs were evaluated using the IMPACT framework under three evaluation prompt strategies: baseline (E1), top-down decremental (E2), and bottom-up incremental (E3). Agreement between clinician ratings and the automated o3-mini evaluator (Azure AI, version 2025-01-31) was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), with strategy comparisons by Fisher's z-transformation. Score deviations were examined with repeated-measures ANOVA.
resultsMean IMPACT scores were 79.9 (SD 9.9) for E1, 83.3 (SD 9.6) for E2, 78.7 (SD 9.1) for E3, and 78.6 (SD 8.9) for clinicians. All strategies demonstrated substantial agreement (ICC > 0.80). E2 showed significantly lower agreement with clinicians (ICC = 0.82) than E1 and E3 (both ICC = 0.94, p < 0.001). Score deviations differed significantly across strategies (p < 0.001), with E3 showing the smallest mean deviation (0.1) and E2 the largest (4.7).
conclusionsPrompt design meaningfully affects both IMPACT scoring patterns and the reliability of LLM-based evaluators. Bottom-up incremental scoring showed the closest alignment with human assessment, underscoring the need for standardised prompt architectures in clinical AI evaluation.
Indexed as
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.