Recognizing Study Lineage Is Not Enough: Over-Crediting Same-Trial Evidence in LLM-Based Medical Verification

Abstract

Publication count is not study count. A model can identify shared trial lineage correctly in a direct task yet over-credit a second publication from the same trial when aggregating evidence. We evaluate this behavior in medical LLM verification using 14 source-audited clinical families and five model conditions. The families span provenance, clinical applicability, result direction, and composition; the provenance families provide the direct lineage tests. Recognition and aggregation are separate stateless calls, and repeated calls assess within-input stability. Across all three original provenance families, GPT-5.5 identifies the independent update in 10/10 recognition calls per family but over-credits the same-trial report in 5/5 separate aggregation calls per family. Selected Qwen3-4B and Ministral-3-8B conditions show the same cross-task contrast. A study-grouping instruction reduces GPT-5.5 over-credit from 4/5 to 0/5 in each later pure-provenance family. Other model conditions show mixed behavior, and rejected outputs limit several comparisons. The results identify a behavioral gap between elicited lineage recognition and evidence aggregation. The code and data artifacts are available at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/study-lineage-review-artifact.

Abstract: arXiv descriptive metadata (CC0). Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. This service was not reviewed or approved by, nor does it necessarily express or reflect the policies or opinions of, arXiv.