Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
AI2
UWFred Hutchinson Cancer CenterIndependent ResearcherPancreatic Cancer Action NetworkMar 2, 2026arXiv:2603.01343The authors introduce PanCanBench, a new benchmark for evaluating LLMs on real-world pancreatic cancer patient questions, addressing the limitations of existing benchmarks that lack disease-specific depth and hallucination assessment. They curated 3,130 question-specific criteria across 282 authentic patient questions using a human-in-the-loop pipeline and evaluated 22 LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration. Results showed substantial variation in rubric-based completeness and high rates of factual errors across models, highlighting the need for specialized benchmarks and careful evaluation of LLMs in clinical settings.
LLMs still struggle with factual accuracy in specialized medical domains like pancreatic cancer, with hallucination rates varying wildly and web search integration failing to guarantee better responses.
Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety. As patients and clinicians increasingly use LLMs for guidance on complex conditions such as pancreatic cancer, evaluation must extend beyond general medical knowledge. Existing frameworks, such as HealthBench, rely on simulated queries and lack disease-specific depth. Moreover, high rubric-based scores do not ensure factual correctness, underscoring the need to assess hallucinations. We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN). The resulting benchmark, PanCanBench, includes 3,130 question-specific criteria across 282 authentic patient questions. We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration. Models showed substantial variation in rubric-based completeness, with scores ranging from 46.5% to 82.3%. Factual errors were common, with hallucination rates (the percentages of responses containing at least one factual error) ranging from 6.0% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and GPT-4o to 53.8% for Llama-3.1-8B. Importantly, newer reasoning-optimized models did not consistently improve factuality: although o3 achieved the highest rubric score, it produced inaccuracies more frequently than other GPT-family models. Web-search integration did not inherently guarantee better responses. The average score changed from 66.8% to 63.9% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and from 73.8% to 72.8% for GPT-5 when web search was enabled. Synthetic AI-generated rubrics inflated absolute scores by 17.9 points on average while generally maintaining similar relative ranking.
