Faithful by Design: Evaluating and Improving LLM-Generated Clinical Trial Summaries for Multi-Stakeholder Audiences
Quick Answer
This study evaluates the faithfulness of LLM-generated clinical trial summaries using a benchmark framework across three stakeholder audiences.
Quick Take
This study evaluates the faithfulness of LLM-generated clinical trial summaries using a benchmark framework across three stakeholder audiences. Models like GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.5 Flash showed unsupported claims as a major failure mode, with improvements noted when using a knowledge-graph-augmented retrieval system, particularly in NLI-based faithfulness scores.
Key Points
- Introduced a benchmark framework with 200 stratified trials for evaluating LLM summaries.
- GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.5 Flash scored poorly on unsupported claims.
- Knowledge-graph-augmented retrieval improved NLI-based faithfulness scores significantly.
- Improvements varied by model, with GPT-4o reducing contradictions effectively.
- Study highlights risks of hallucination in clinical trial summaries for stakeholders.
Paper Resources
📖 Reader Mode
~2 min readAbstract:Large language models are increasingly used to summarize clinical trial results for healthcare providers, patients, and payers, but their tendency to hallucinate poses significant risks in this high-stakes context. This study introduces a benchmark evaluation framework for measuring the faithfulness of LLM-generated clinical trial summaries across three stakeholder audiences. The framework consists of 200 stratified trials drawn from the Aggregate Analysis of this http URL database, evaluated using audience-specific prompt templates and a six-dimension faithfulness annotation schema. Baseline measurements were established for GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 4.6, and Gemini 2.5 Flash across 1,800 generated summaries scored using a cross-encoder natural language inference (NLI) model. Unsupported Claims was identified as the dominant failure mode across all three models, with a mean annotation score of 1.55 out of three. A knowledge-graph-augmented retrieval system was developed and evaluated against the baseline, producing statistically significant improvements in NLI-based faithfulness scores (entailment +0.0125, faithfulness +0.0130, p < 0.0001). Improvement pathways were model-dependent, with GPT-4o improving primarily through contradiction reduction while Claude Sonnet 4.6 and Gemini 2.5 Flash improved through increased entailment.
| Comments: | 8 pages, 8 figures |
| Subjects: | Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI) |
| Cite as: | arXiv:2607.09932 [cs.CL] |
| (or arXiv:2607.09932v1 [cs.CL] for this version) | |
| https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.09932 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration) |
Submission history
From: Robert Williams [view email]
[v1]
Fri, 10 Jul 2026 19:29:26 UTC (1,810 KB)
— Originally published at arxiv.org
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from arXiv cs.CL
See more →Letting the Data Speak: Extracting Keywords from Crowdsourced Collections with AI
The study evaluates three NLP approaches—Named Entity Recognition, Keyword Extraction, and Topic Modelling—using the Their Finest Hour Online Archive to automate keyword extraction from crowdsourced WWII collections. Findings suggest that while NLP methods show promise, no single approach is sufficient, and ethical considerations in automated keyword extraction are crucial for responsible stewardship.