bioRxiv / medRxiv
open access
CC BY 4.0
Citation reliability of frontier large language models in medical writing and its automated verification
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to draft medical manuscripts, yet their citations are unreliable and clinicians lack a validated way to verify them. We evaluated three frontier LLMs, Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, and Gemini 3.5 Flash, generating 270 cardiology narrative reviews with w
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- A collective capability boundary in frontier large language models on guideline-conformant and case-specific oncology decision-making#792844
- A collective capability boundary in frontier large language models on guideline-conformant and case-specific oncology decision-making#788840
- Potenzial und Herausforderungen von Large Language Models in der klinischen Entscheidungsfindung#1068003
- Counterfactual Auditing of Bias in Open-Source Large Language Models for Clinical Triage#1161056
- Counterfactual Auditing of Bias in Open-Source Large Language Models for Clinical Triage#1157311
Record · ID 1169750
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive