Jul 2026· 2026 6th International Conference on Electrical, Computer and Energy Technologies (ICECET)· pp. 1-6· 0 citations· 14 references
Abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) such as ChatGPT and Gemini are increasingly used to answer medical and psychological questions, yet systematic evaluations across domains with differing reasoning demands remain limited. We present a multi-domain expert evaluation of two state-of-the-art models, ChatGPT Pro (v5.2) and Gemini 3 Pro, across three healthcare domains: Gynecology, Pathology, and Psychology. We curated 300 open-ended, realistic questions, 100 per domain, designed to elicit clinical reasoning, mechanistic interpretation, and conceptual explanation. Responses were independently scored by domain experts using a standardized five-point rubric. Results reveal domain-dependent performance patterns, with both models performing well in guideline-aligned advisory tasks in Gynecology, lower in mechanistic diagnostic contexts in Pathology, and showing divergent strengths in conceptual psychology questions. Quantitative and qualitative analyses highlight recurring limitations in contextual nuance, mechanistic depth, and safety framing. These findings underscore the importance of domainstratified evaluation and expert oversight when deploying LLMs for healthcare information and provide a reproducible framework for future assessments.
Background This study was designed to evaluate whether a domain-specific large language model (LLM) trained exclusively on patient education resources can answer questions about psychiatric medications, in a manner superior to LLM chatbots. We developed an LLM ("MIND") fine-tuned for clinical fidelity, trained on patient education resources from authoritative medical organizations. Methods We compared the responses of MIND, ChatGPT, and OpenEvidence to patient questions about escitalopram, using two methods: (1) computer analysis according to a rubric measuring accuracy, clarity, completeness, nuance, safety, and referral appropriateness; (2) ratings from N=10 board-licensed psychiatrists on similar metrics. Results When rated by rubric, MIND was rated highest in all domains (p<0.001). When rated by psychiatrists, ChatGPT was rated accurate more often than MIND with a negligible effect size (p=0.021, r=0.073); MIND was rated complete more often than ChatGPT with a small effect size (p<0.001, r=0.160); and MIND and ChatGPT were rated safe with the same frequency (p=0.955, r=0.002). The majority of psychiatrists preferred the responses generated by ChatGPT (57.6%) compared to MIND (42.4%, p=0.003). Conclusions MIND was able to answer many questions about escitalopram in a manner deemed accurate, complete, and safe by psychiatrists the majority of the time. However, despite MIND's ability to provide more complete responses, psychiatrists preferred ChatGPT's responses. MIND represents a step towards building safe LLM systems to enhance patient education in psychiatry.
Alexander J. Hish, A. Nagendran, S. Compton· 0 citations
This work introduces PsyEval, a benchmark specifically designed to evaluate LLMs in mental health-related tasks across three core dimensions: knowledge, diagnosis, and emotional support, and reveals considerable gaps in LLMs' current ability to reason accurately and respond appropriately in mental health contexts.
Haoan Jin, Siyuan Chen, Dilawaier Dilixiati et al.· npj Mental Health Research· 0 citations
A dual-view approach that connects clinical practice with computational methods is presented, establishing a five-level competency scheme following Miller’s Pyramid and linking deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning patterns to common medical goals and tasks.
A single LLM verifier lacks sufficient reliability to serve as a stand-alone judge of clinical reasoning at scale, and that structured human oversight remains essential.
Hyunjung Byun, Dahyoun Lee, Munyoung Jung et al.· Journal of medical systems· 1 citation· ⚡1
Large language models are best understood as emerging assessment-support tools rather than replacements for clinical evaluation because the limited pace of academic validation means that, at present, LLMs are best understood as emerging assessment-support tools rather than replacements for clinical evaluation.
K. Aafjes-van Doorn, Francine Cheng Ty, A. Hua et al.· Journal of Psychopathology a...· 0 citations
It is found that LLM access enhances performance on standardized clinical vignettes in all three countries, and policymakers should prioritize structured integration of LLMs as decision-support tools, combined with targeted training, local validation, and safeguards against automation bias rather than relying on access alone.
N. Rounding, L. S. Arif, Janine Berg et al.· 0 citations