Traditional metrics like BLEU and BERTScore fail to capture semantic fidelity in generative text-to-text tasks. We adapt the Cross-Examination Framework (CEF) for a reference-free, multi-dimensional evaluation by treating the source and candidate as independent knowledge bases. CEF generates verifiable questions from each text and performs a cross-examination to derive three interpretable scores: Coverage, Conformity, and Consistency. Validated across translation, summarization and clinical note-generation, our framework identifies critical errors, such as content omissions and factual contradictions, missed by standard metrics. A key contribution is a systematic robustness analysis to select a stable judge model. Crucially, the strong correlation between our reference-free and with-reference modes validates CEF’s reliability without gold references. Furthermore, human expert validation demonstrates that CEF mismatching questions align with meaning-altering semantic errors higher than with non-semantic errors, particularly excelling at identifying entity-based and relational distortions.

Large language models offer transformative potential for healthcare, yet their responsible and equitable development depends critically on a deeper understanding of how training data characteristics influence model behavior, including the potential for bias. Current practices in dataset curation and bias assessment often lack the necessary transparency, creating an urgent need for comprehensive evaluation frameworks to foster trust and guide improvements. In this study, we present an in-depth analysis of potential downstream biases in clinical language models, with a focus on differential opioid prescription tendencies across diverse demographic groups, such as ethnicity, gender, and age. As part of this investigation, we introduce HC4: Healthcare Comprehensive Commons Corpus, a novel and extensively curated pretraining dataset exceeding 89 billion tokens. Our evaluation leverages both established general benchmarks and a novel, healthcare-specific methodology, offering crucial insights to support fairness and safety in clinical AI applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in revolutionizing clinical applications. In this study, we investigate the efficacy of four techniques in adapting LLMs for clinical use-cases: continuous pretraining, instruct fine-tuning, NEFTune, and prompt engineering. We employ these methods on Mistral 7B and Mixtral 8x7B models, leveraging a large-scale clinical pretraining dataset of 50 billion tokens and an instruct fine-tuning dataset of 500 million tokens. Our evaluation across various clinical tasks reveals nuanced insights. While continuous pretraining beyond 250 billion tokens yields marginal improvements, instruct fine-tuning emerges as a more influential factor. Notably, NEFTune, designed primarily to enhance generation quality, surprisingly demonstrates additional gains on our benchmark. These findings underscore the importance of tailoring fine-tuning strategies and exploring innovative techniques to optimize LLM performance in the clinical domain.