Large language models show systematic failures in incorporating evolving medical knowledge
3 judges. Scored by all three judges. Only the day’s top stories get the claim check. How far stories are checked
ChronoEvo is a benchmark of 1,709 medical guideline revisions spanning 12 change types, used to test whether large language models faithfully update clinical recommendations when given revised evidence.
Score
0.66total under rubric v2.0
- Significance0.63
- Reader interest0.68
- Audience breadth0.50
- Practical relevance0.63
- Substantiated0.86
- Technical depth0.79
- New information0.90
- Counts against: Promotional0.04
- Counts against: Overclaim0.20
Each judge’s answer per question (0–1), their mean and spread, and what the question adds to the score (weight × mean).
| Question | Judge 1 | Judge 2 | Judge 3 | Mean | Spread | Weight | Contribution (weight times mean) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significance | 0.71 | 0.45 | 0.72 | 0.63 | 0.27 | +0.25 | +0.156 |
| Reader interest | 0.65 | 0.55 | 0.84 | 0.68 | 0.29 | +0.20 | +0.136 |
| Audience breadth | 0.63 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 0.50 | 0.23 | +0.10 | +0.050 |
| Practical relevance | 0.72 | 0.50 | 0.68 | 0.63 | 0.22 | +0.15 | +0.095 |
| Substantiated | 0.99 | 0.72 | 0.87 | 0.86 | 0.27 | +0.10 | +0.086 |
| Technical depth | 0.92 | 0.60 | 0.86 | 0.79 | 0.32 | +0.10 | +0.079 |
| New information | 0.92 | 0.80 | 0.99 | 0.90 | 0.19 | +0.10 | +0.090 |
| Promotional | 0.04 | 0.05 | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.03 | −0.15 | −0.006 |
| Overclaim | 0.18 | 0.30 | 0.12 | 0.20 | 0.18 | −0.15 | −0.030 |
| Sum of contributions | +0.658 | ||||||
| Claim-check penalty | 0.000 | ||||||
| Total, as published | 0.658 | ||||||
Spread is the highest minus the lowest judge answer. marks a spread above 0.40: the judges disagree, and the story is marked contested.
Also covered by
No other coverage was clustered with this story.
Elsewhere
Elsewhere: HN —
Recorded for context only, checked 24 Oct 2026, 08:54 UTC. It played no part in the ranking.