Abstract
Purpose Large language models (LLMs) are used for biomedical text processing, but individual decisions are often hard to audit. We evaluated whether enforcing a mechanically checkable “show your work” quote affects accuracy, stability, and verifiability for trial eligibility-scope classification from abstracts.
Methods We used 200 oncology randomized controlled trials (2005 - 2023) and provided models with only the title and abstract. Trials were labeled with whether they allowed for the inclusion of patients with localized and/or metastatic disease. Three flagship models (GPT-5.2, Gemini 3 Flash, Claude Opus 4.5) were queried with default settings in two independent conditions: label-only and label plus a verbatim supporting quote. Models could abstain if they deemed the abstract to not contain sufficient information. Each condition was repeated three times per abstract. Quotes were mechanically validated as exact substrings after whitespace normalization, and a separate judge step used an LLM to rate whether each quote supported the assigned label.
Results Evidence requirements modestly reduced coverage (GPT-5.2 86.2% to 84.3%, Gemini 98.3% to 92.8%, Claude 96.0% to 94.5%) by increasing abstentions and, for Gemini, invalid outputs. Conditional macro-F1 remained high but changed by model (slight gains for GPT-5.2 and Gemini, decrease for Claude). Labels were stable across repetitions (Fleiss’ kappa 0.829 to 0.969). Mechanically valid quotes occurred in 83.3% to 91.2% of runs, yet only 48.0% to 78.8% of evidence-bearing predictions were judged semantically supported. Restricting to supported predictions increased macro-F1 at the cost of lower coverage.
Conclusion Substring-verifiable quotes provide an automated audit trail and enable selective, higher-trust automation when applying LLMs to biomedical text processing. However, this approach introduces new failure modes and trades coverage for verifiability in a model-dependent way.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
Swiss Cancer Research grant No. KFS-6477-08-2025-R
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Ethics approval and consent to participate: Not applicable
Availability of data and materials: All data and code used to obtain this study’s results have been uploaded to https://github.com/windisch-paul/llm_citation.
Competing interests: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding: Swiss Cancer Research grant No. KFS-6477-08-2025-R
Data Availability
All data and code used to obtain this study's results have been uploaded to https://github.com/windisch-paul/llm_citation.
