MedConclusion: A Benchmark for Biomedical Conclusion Generation from Structured Abstracts

Large language models (LLMs) are widely explored for reasoning-intensive research tasks, yet resources for testing whether they can infer scientific conclusions from structured biomedical evidence remain limited. We introduce $\textbf{MedConclusion}$, a large-scale dataset of $\textbf{5.7M}$ PubMed structured abstracts for biomedical conclusion generation. Each instance pairs the non-conclusion sections of an abstract with the original author-written conclusion, providing naturally occurring supervision for evidence-to-conclusion reasoning. MedConclusion also includes journal-level metadata such as biomedical category and SJR, enabling subgroup analysis across biomedical domains. As an initial study, we evaluate diverse LLMs under conclusion and summary prompting settings and score outputs with both reference-based metrics and LLM-as-a-judge. We find that conclusion writing is behaviorally distinct from summary writing, strong models remain closely clustered under current automatic metrics, and judge identity can substantially shift absolute scores. MedConclusion provides a reusable data resource for studying scientific evidence-to-conclusion reasoning. Our code and data are available at: https://github.com/Harvard-AI-and-Robotics-Lab/MedConclusion.

Grading Scale Impact on LLM-as-a-Judge: Human-LLM Alignment Is Highest on 0-5 Grading Scale

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used as automated evaluators, yet prior works demonstrate that these LLM judges often lack consistency in scoring when the prompt is altered. However, the effect of the grading scale itself remains underexplored. We study the LLM-as-a-judge problem by comparing two kinds of raters: humans and LLMs. We collect ratings from both groups on three scales and across six benchmarks that include objective, open-ended subjective, and mixed tasks. Using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) to measure absolute agreement, we find that LLM judgments are not perfectly consistent across scales on subjective benchmarks, and that the choice of scale substantially shifts human-LLM agreement, even when within-group panel reliability is high. Aggregated over tasks, the grading scale of 0-5 yields the strongest human-LLM alignment. We further demonstrate that pooled reliability can mask benchmark heterogeneity and reveal systematic subgroup differences in alignment across gender groups, strengthening the importance of scale design and sub-level diagnostics as essential components of LLM-as-a-judge protocols.