Daily Papers

Radiology report generation aims at generating descriptive text from radiology images automatically, which may present an opportunity to improve radiology reporting and interpretation. A typical setting consists of training encoder-decoder models on image-report pairs with a cross entropy loss, which struggles to generate informative sentences for clinical diagnoses since normal findings dominate the datasets. To tackle this challenge and encourage more clinically-accurate text outputs, we propose a novel weakly supervised contrastive loss for medical report generation. Experimental results demonstrate that our method benefits from contrasting target reports with incorrect but semantically-close ones. It outperforms previous work on both clinical correctness and text generation metrics for two public benchmarks.

Intraoperative anesthesia requires systems to interpret evolving multimodal evidence, recommend timely management, and revise decisions as patient states change, yet existing benchmarks usually isolate perception or single-point reasoning. We introduce AnesTRACE, an evaluation suite comprising AnesTRACE-Bench and AnesTRACE-Eval. Built from public perioperative datasets with anesthesiologist annotation, AnesTRACE-Bench evaluates Intraoperative Perception, Single-point Anesthesia Decision-Making, and Multi-step Anesthesia Decision-Making. AnesTRACE-Eval assesses open-ended responses through anesthesiologist-defined criteria for Clinical Correctness, Evidence Grounding, Task Completeness, and Safety, with Temporal Consistency for multi-step decisions; its domain-specific evaluator is trained by supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment on expert-reviewed judgments. Across more than 30 models, fine-grained visual grounding and intervention selection remain difficult: the leading model reaches only 32.2 mIoU for TEE visual grounding and retains a 17.5\% Major/Critical Safety Error Rate in multi-step management. Evaluator alignment with anesthesiologists improves across both training stages, while the best decision quality is accompanied by a 74.3-second P95 Latency. These results show that aggregate performance alone does not establish safe, timely longitudinal decision-making. We release our code at https://zjudbxai.github.io/AnesTRACE/.

Conversational AI tools that can generate and discuss clinically correct radiology reports for a given medical image have the potential to transform radiology. Such a human-in-the-loop radiology assistant could facilitate a collaborative diagnostic process, thus saving time and improving the quality of reports. Towards this goal, we introduce RaDialog, the first thoroughly evaluated and publicly available large vision-language model for radiology report generation and interactive dialog. RaDialog effectively integrates visual image features and structured pathology findings with a large language model (LLM) while simultaneously adapting it to a specialized domain using parameter-efficient fine-tuning. To keep the conversational abilities of the underlying LLM, we propose a comprehensive, semi-automatically labeled, image-grounded instruct dataset for chest X-ray radiology tasks. By training with this dataset, our method achieves state-of-the-art clinical correctness in report generation and shows impressive abilities in interactive tasks such as correcting reports and answering questions, serving as a foundational step toward clinical dialog systems. Our code is available on github: https://github.com/ChantalMP/RaDialog.

The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) in high-stakes clinical settings demands rigorous and reliable evaluation. However, existing medical benchmarks remain static, suffering from two critical limitations: (1) data contamination, where test sets inadvertently leak into training corpora, leading to inflated performance estimates; and (2) temporal misalignment, failing to capture the rapid evolution of medical knowledge. Furthermore, current evaluation metrics for open-ended clinical reasoning often rely on either shallow lexical overlap (e.g., ROUGE) or subjective LLM-as-a-Judge scoring, both inadequate for verifying clinical correctness. To bridge these gaps, we introduce LiveMedBench, a continuously updated, contamination-free, and rubric-based benchmark that weekly harvests real-world clinical cases from online medical communities, ensuring strict temporal separation from model training data. We propose a Multi-Agent Clinical Curation Framework that filters raw data noise and validates clinical integrity against evidence-based medical principles. For evaluation, we develop an Automated Rubric-based Evaluation Framework that decomposes physician responses into granular, case-specific criteria, achieving substantially stronger alignment with expert physicians than LLM-as-a-Judge. To date, LiveMedBench comprises 2,756 real-world cases spanning 38 medical specialties and multiple languages, paired with 16,702 unique evaluation criteria. Extensive evaluation of 38 LLMs reveals that even the best-performing model achieves only 39.2%, and 84% of models exhibit performance degradation on post-cutoff cases, confirming pervasive data contamination risks. Error analysis further identifies contextual application-not factual knowledge-as the dominant bottleneck, with 35-48% of failures stemming from the inability to tailor medical knowledge to patient-specific constraints.

Current evaluation protocols for Vision-Language Models (VLMs) in Radiology Report Generation (RRG) rely on report-level metrics that measure lexical overlap or aggregate clinical correctness. However, such metrics do not test whether individual diagnostic statements stem from the actual pathological evidence visible in the image. This allows models to achieve competitive scores by exploiting learned priors or spurious correlations, a failure mode we refer to as vision shortcut. We introduce SHOVIR, a benchmark for evaluating vision shortcut behavior in RRG. SHOVIR extends two spatially annotated chest X-ray datasets, MIMIC-CXR and PadChest-GR, with per-box CheXpert labels, and defines image-level and disease-level occlusion experiments that contrast baseline performance on clean images against localized, region-specific perturbations. Comparing predictions across these conditions isolates two failure modes at the disease-class level: direct shortcuts, where a finding persists after its visual evidence is removed, and contextual shortcuts, where detection degrades once co-occurring pathologies are occluded despite the target region remaining intact. Benchmarking eight state-of-the-art VLMs, we find that shortcut behavior varies substantially across architectures and datasets. Models achieving the highest baseline report quality do not necessarily rank highest in spatial grounding, revealing that clinically fluent generation can coexist with shallow reliance on visual evidence. These findings expose a blind spot in current RRG evaluation and motivate region-aware assessment protocols.

Sifting through vast textual data and summarizing key information imposes a substantial burden on how clinicians allocate their time. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown immense promise in natural language processing (NLP) tasks, their efficacy across diverse clinical summarization tasks has not yet been rigorously examined. In this work, we employ domain adaptation methods on eight LLMs, spanning six datasets and four distinct summarization tasks: radiology reports, patient questions, progress notes, and doctor-patient dialogue. Our thorough quantitative assessment reveals trade-offs between models and adaptation methods in addition to instances where recent advances in LLMs may not lead to improved results. Further, in a clinical reader study with six physicians, we depict that summaries from the best adapted LLM are preferable to human summaries in terms of completeness and correctness. Our ensuing qualitative analysis delineates mutual challenges faced by both LLMs and human experts. Lastly, we correlate traditional quantitative NLP metrics with reader study scores to enhance our understanding of how these metrics align with physician preferences. Our research marks the first evidence of LLMs outperforming human experts in clinical text summarization across multiple tasks. This implies that integrating LLMs into clinical workflows could alleviate documentation burden, empowering clinicians to focus more on personalized patient care and other irreplaceable human aspects of medicine.

Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) have shown strong reasoning capabilities through large-scale pretraining and post-training reinforcement learning, demonstrated by DeepSeek-R1. However, current post-training methods, such as Grouped Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO), mainly reward correctness, which is not aligned with the multi-dimensional objectives required in high-stakes fields such as medicine, where reasoning must also be faithful and comprehensive. We introduce Clinical-Objective Relative Policy Optimization (CRPO), a scalable, multi-objective, verifiable reinforcement learning method designed to align LLM post-training with clinical reasoning principles. CRPO integrates rule-based and verifiable reward signals that jointly optimize accuracy, faithfulness, and comprehensiveness without relying on human annotation. To demonstrate its effectiveness, we train Clinical-R1-3B, a 3B-parameter model for clinical reasoning. The experiments on three benchmarks demonstrate that our CRPO substantially improves reasoning on truthfulness and completeness over standard GRPO while maintaining comfortable accuracy enhancements. This framework provides a scalable pathway to align LLM reasoning with clinical objectives, enabling safer and more collaborative AI systems for healthcare while also highlighting the potential of multi-objective, verifiable RL methods in post-training scaling of LLMs for medical domains.

Doctors and patients alike increasingly use Large Language Models (LLMs) to diagnose clinical cases. However, unlike domains such as math or coding, where correctness can be objectively defined by the final answer, medical diagnosis requires both the outcome and the reasoning process to be accurate. Currently, widely used medical benchmarks like MedQA and MMLU assess only accuracy in the final answer, overlooking the quality and faithfulness of the clinical reasoning process. To address this limitation, we introduce MedCaseReasoning, the first open-access dataset for evaluating LLMs on their ability to align with clinician-authored diagnostic reasoning. The dataset includes 14,489 diagnostic question-and-answer cases, each paired with detailed reasoning statements derived from open-access medical case reports. We evaluate state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs on MedCaseReasoning and find significant shortcomings in their diagnoses and reasoning: for instance, the top-performing open-source model, DeepSeek-R1, achieves only 48% 10-shot diagnostic accuracy and mentions only 64% of the clinician reasoning statements (recall). However, we demonstrate that fine-tuning LLMs on the reasoning traces derived from MedCaseReasoning significantly improves diagnostic accuracy and clinical reasoning recall by an average relative gain of 29% and 41%, respectively. The open-source dataset, code, and models are available at https://github.com/kevinwu23/Stanford-MedCaseReasoning.

Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integrating and updating evidence across time and sources to form, revise and justify a patient's problem representation and a defensible plan. This structured narrative review maps three literatures: medical education assessment instruments, clinical LLM benchmarks published from 2023 onwards, and general-domain methods for evaluating long-form generation. We examine six dimensions: problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. Preprints are included and flagged. No single instrument covers all six dimensions. Problem representation and differential or management reasoning are reasonably covered, although reliability varies by instrument and setting. TIMER-Eval targets temporal synthesis, and ER-Reason assesses sequential diagnostic belief updating. Dedicated uncertainty and counterfactual evaluations are emerging, but their applicability to longitudinal free-text reasoning remains limited. Factual completeness is well theorised in general-domain evaluation, with early clinical evidence of important omissions. Faithfulness remains the weakest dimension, with one identified clinical causal-ablation study on multiple-choice questions. Existing tools should be combined through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, case-specific importance weighting with non-compensable safety caps, temporal order-consistency checks, and chance-corrected reliability reporting. Further design work is needed for calibrated uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning and faithfulness over longitudinal free-text records. This review provides a design rationale, not a validated instrument.

Several studies showed that Large Language Models (LLMs) can answer medical questions correctly, even outperforming the average human score in some medical exams. However, to our knowledge, no study has been conducted to assess the ability of language models to validate existing or generated medical text for correctness and consistency. In this paper, we introduce MEDEC (https://github.com/abachaa/MEDEC), the first publicly available benchmark for medical error detection and correction in clinical notes, covering five types of errors (Diagnosis, Management, Treatment, Pharmacotherapy, and Causal Organism). MEDEC consists of 3,848 clinical texts, including 488 clinical notes from three US hospital systems that were not previously seen by any LLM. The dataset has been used for the MEDIQA-CORR shared task to evaluate seventeen participating systems [Ben Abacha et al., 2024]. In this paper, we describe the data creation methods and we evaluate recent LLMs (e.g., o1-preview, GPT-4, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and Gemini 2.0 Flash) for the tasks of detecting and correcting medical errors requiring both medical knowledge and reasoning capabilities. We also conducted a comparative study where two medical doctors performed the same task on the MEDEC test set. The results showed that MEDEC is a sufficiently challenging benchmark to assess the ability of models to validate existing or generated notes and to correct medical errors. We also found that although recent LLMs have a good performance in error detection and correction, they are still outperformed by medical doctors in these tasks. We discuss the potential factors behind this gap, the insights from our experiments, the limitations of current evaluation metrics, and share potential pointers for future research.

Background: Clinical documentation represents a significant burden for healthcare providers, with physicians spending up to 2 hours daily on administrative tasks. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) offer promising solutions, but privacy concerns and computational requirements limit their adoption in healthcare settings. Objective: To develop and evaluate a privacy-preserving, on-device medical transcription system using a fine-tuned Llama 3.2 1B model capable of generating structured medical notes from medical transcriptions while maintaining complete data sovereignty entirely in the browser. Methods: We fine-tuned a Llama 3.2 1B model using Parameter-Efficient Fine-Tuning (PEFT) with LoRA on 1,500 synthetic medical transcription-to-structured note pairs. The model was evaluated against the base Llama 3.2 1B on two datasets: 100 endocrinology transcripts and 140 modified ACI benchmark cases. Evaluation employed both statistical metrics (ROUGE, BERTScore, BLEURT) and LLM-as-judge assessments across multiple clinical quality dimensions. Results: The fine-tuned OnDevice model demonstrated substantial improvements over the base model. On the ACI benchmark, ROUGE-1 scores increased from 0.346 to 0.496, while BERTScore F1 improved from 0.832 to 0.866. Clinical quality assessments showed marked reduction in major hallucinations (from 85 to 35 cases) and enhanced factual correctness (2.81 to 3.54 on 5-point scale). Similar improvements were observed on the internal evaluation dataset, with composite scores increasing from 3.13 to 4.43 (+41.5%). Conclusions: Fine-tuning compact LLMs for medical transcription yields clinically meaningful improvements while enabling complete on-device browser deployment. This approach addresses key barriers to AI adoption in healthcare: privacy preservation, cost reduction, and accessibility for resource-constrained environments.

Cognitive remediation tasks often require patients to perform structured actions involving object manipulation and sequential reasoning. For patients diagnosed with schizophrenia, these tasks are crucial for addressing severe cognitive deficits. However, evaluating the correctness of these physical actions generally relies on manual observation by clinicians, which introduces subjectivity and limits the scalability of therapeutic interventions. In this paper, we propose an automated framework based on Vision-Language Models for action verification in cognitive remediation tasks tailored for schizophrenia rehabilitation. The proposed system relies on a camera-monitored tabletop environment composed of structured miniature scenes including roads, a roundabout, a park, and toy vehicles. Patients receive audio instructions describing goal-oriented spatial actions to perform by manipulating a toy vehicle. These interactive physical activities are specifically designed to stimulate targeted cognitive functions, such as sustained attention, motor coordination, spatial navigation, and cognitive flexibility. To verify the correctness of the performed actions without requiring continuous clinical oversight, the system analyzes the video feed tracking the patient's hand and toy movements. A fine-tuned Vision-Language Model interprets the recorded video sequences and generates semantic descriptions of the observed activities, enabling high-level verification of the executed actions with respect to the initial textual instructions. A dedicated dataset of 4634 tabletop cognitive remediation video scenarios was collected to evaluate the proposed approach. Experimental results demonstrate that our specialized framework effectively bridges low-level physical telemetry with high-level clinical feedback, presenting a scalable and objective solution for advanced cognitive rehabilitation.

Recent multimodal large language models have shown great promise in clinical image reasoning, but existing post-training pipelines remain predominantly outcome-centric, relying on final answer correctness or sequence-level preferences. This suffers from sparse credit assignment, making it difficult to optimize the reasoning process essential for clinical applications. Our analysis reveals that cascading errors from early-stage reasoning failures are a leading cause of incorrect predictions in medical visual question answering (VQA) benchmarks. Motivated by this, we propose Medical Reasoning-aware Policy Optimization (MRPO), an RL algorithm that incorporates step-wise process rewards. When the final answer is incorrect, MRPO assigns exponentially larger penalties to tokens in earlier invalid reasoning steps, breaking failure cascades without compromising successful paths. Across three multimodal LLM backbones, MRPO consistently outperforms standard GRPO and a recent RL baseline, and on Qwen3-VL-8B-Instruct even surpasses substantially larger medical MLLMs such as HuatuoGPT-Vision-34B by 2.79 points. Moreover, MRPO reduces early-stage reasoning failures from 64.0% to 13.0%, showing that targeted mitigation of cascading failures improves both reasoning quality and final answer accuracy. Our code is available at https://github.com/dmis-lab/MRPO

Automated diagnosis prediction from medical images is a valuable resource to support clinical decision-making. However, such systems usually need to be trained on large amounts of annotated data, which often is scarce in the medical domain. Zero-shot methods address this challenge by allowing a flexible adaption to new settings with different clinical findings without relying on labeled data. Further, to integrate automated diagnosis in the clinical workflow, methods should be transparent and explainable, increasing medical professionals' trust and facilitating correctness verification. In this work, we introduce Xplainer, a novel framework for explainable zero-shot diagnosis in the clinical setting. Xplainer adapts the classification-by-description approach of contrastive vision-language models to the multi-label medical diagnosis task. Specifically, instead of directly predicting a diagnosis, we prompt the model to classify the existence of descriptive observations, which a radiologist would look for on an X-Ray scan, and use the descriptor probabilities to estimate the likelihood of a diagnosis. Our model is explainable by design, as the final diagnosis prediction is directly based on the prediction of the underlying descriptors. We evaluate Xplainer on two chest X-ray datasets, CheXpert and ChestX-ray14, and demonstrate its effectiveness in improving the performance and explainability of zero-shot diagnosis. Our results suggest that Xplainer provides a more detailed understanding of the decision-making process and can be a valuable tool for clinical diagnosis.

Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning has proven effective in enhancing large language models by encouraging step-by-step intermediate reasoning, and recent advances have extended this paradigm to Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs). In the medical domain, where diagnostic decisions depend on nuanced visual cues and sequential reasoning, CoT aligns naturally with clinical thinking processes. However, Current benchmarks for medical image understanding generally focus on the final answer while ignoring the reasoning path. An opaque process lacks reliable bases for judgment, making it difficult to assist doctors in diagnosis. To address this gap, we introduce a new M3CoTBench benchmark specifically designed to evaluate the correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency of CoT reasoning in medical image understanding. M3CoTBench features 1) a diverse, multi-level difficulty dataset covering 24 examination types, 2) 13 varying-difficulty tasks, 3) a suite of CoT-specific evaluation metrics (correctness, efficiency, impact, and consistency) tailored to clinical reasoning, and 4) a performance analysis of multiple MLLMs. M3CoTBench systematically evaluates CoT reasoning across diverse medical imaging tasks, revealing current limitations of MLLMs in generating reliable and clinically interpretable reasoning, and aims to foster the development of transparent, trustworthy, and diagnostically accurate AI systems for healthcare. Project page at https://juntaojianggavin.github.io/projects/M3CoTBench/.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients present information in different ways, and clinicians must obtain relevant history and determine which examinations are needed before reaching a diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy alone therefore cannot establish whether an agent gathered essential information or conducted an appropriate clinical assessment. Furthermore, existing benchmarks lack professional clinicians' verification. To address this gap, we introduce KlinikeBench, a benchmark of 333 clinician-authored tasks, each providing an isolated sandbox environment with a virtual patient, clinical tools, and task-specific success criteria. More than 35 clinicians contributed to case authoring and benchmark evaluation. In an empirical study, clinicians gave simulated dialogues higher mean quality ratings than reference conversations, which is adapted from real conversation. In each task, an LM has a fixed budget of turns to communicate with the patient, ask about relevant history, request examinations, follow action constraints, and record a final diagnosis. We score these steps separately as well as together. Across 31 models and seven model families, the best-performing models (e.g., GPT-6-astra and Claude Opus 5) succeed on less than 30% of tasks, even though their diagnosis accuracy reaches 90.7%. Some models benefit from talking with the patient; others diagnose well from a complete chart but perform much worse in conversation. Overall, KlinikeBench provides a testbed for evaluating the full clinical encounter and reveals a substantial gap between diagnostic accuracy and performance in interactive clinical assessment.

Large language models (LLMs) increasingly summarize clinical evidence, where a claim's weight depends on how strongly it is supported. Yet these models convey confidence poorly, and properties they never state, such as truth, are often readable from their activations. Whether a clinical model registers evidence strength, distinct from truth, and states it when asked is untested, and any such signal could be lexical. We compiled 45,134 clinical claims from six public sources, harmonized 20,611 into a four-level evidence grade under three independent frameworks, and tested 22 local, open-weight LLMs from several developers (0.6-70 billion parameters; general, medical, and reasoning), with lexical, truth, and cross-framework controls. A linear estimator recovered the grade in every model (median AUROC 71.8), yet decodability did not rise with scale and was weakest in reasoning models. The grade the models stated fell to chance, 25-27 percentage points below the estimator. The recoverable signal was largely lexical and did not transfer across topics or frameworks, yet it was distinct from factual truth and still flagged weakly supported claims (AUROC 69.2). Clinical LLMs thus carry an ordered evidence-strength signal they do not express, so their stated grades fail to convey a claim's support even when it is recoverable from their representations and text.

Factuality can play an important role when automatically processing clinical text, as it makes a difference if particular symptoms are explicitly not present, possibly present, not mentioned, or affirmed. In most cases, a sufficient number of examples is necessary to handle such phenomena in a supervised machine learning setting. However, as clinical text might contain sensitive information, data cannot be easily shared. In the context of factuality detection, this work presents a simple solution using machine translation to translate English data to German to train a transformer-based factuality detection model.

With the proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in diverse domains, there is a particular need for unified evaluation standards in clinical medical scenarios, where models need to be examined very thoroughly. We present CliMedBench, a comprehensive benchmark with 14 expert-guided core clinical scenarios specifically designed to assess the medical ability of LLMs across 7 pivot dimensions. It comprises 33,735 questions derived from real-world medical reports of top-tier tertiary hospitals and authentic examination exercises. The reliability of this benchmark has been confirmed in several ways. Subsequent experiments with existing LLMs have led to the following findings: (i) Chinese medical LLMs underperform on this benchmark, especially where medical reasoning and factual consistency are vital, underscoring the need for advances in clinical knowledge and diagnostic accuracy. (ii) Several general-domain LLMs demonstrate substantial potential in medical clinics, while the limited input capacity of many medical LLMs hinders their practical use. These findings reveal both the strengths and limitations of LLMs in clinical scenarios and offer critical insights for medical research.

Vision Language Models (VLMs) are increasingly used for tasks like medical report generation and visual question answering. However, fluent diagnostic text does not guarantee safe visual understanding. In clinical practice, interpretation begins with pre-diagnostic sanity checks: verifying that the input is valid to read (correct modality and anatomy, plausible viewpoint and orientation, and no obvious integrity violations). Existing benchmarks largely assume this step is solved, and therefore miss a critical failure mode: a model can produce plausible narratives even when the input is inconsistent or invalid. We introduce MedObvious, a 1,880-task benchmark that isolates input validation as a set-level consistency capability over small multi-panel image sets: the model must identify whether any panel violates expected coherence. MedObvious spans five progressive tiers, from basic orientation/modality mismatches to clinically motivated anatomy/viewpoint verification and triage-style cues, and includes five evaluation formats to test robustness across interfaces. Evaluating 17 different VLMs, we find that sanity checking remains unreliable: several models hallucinate anomalies on normal (negative-control) inputs, performance degrades when scaling to larger image sets, and measured accuracy varies substantially between multiple-choice and open-ended settings. These results show that pre-diagnostic verification remains unsolved for medical VLMs and should be treated as a distinct, safety-critical capability before deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for clinical question answering and decision support, yet safe deployment critically requires reliable handling of patient measurements in heterogeneous clinical notes. Existing evaluations of LLMs for clinical numerical reasoning provide limited operation-level coverage, restricted primarily to arithmetic computation, and rarely assess the robustness of numerical understanding across clinical note formats. We introduce ClinicNumRobBench, a benchmark of 1,624 context-question instances with ground-truth answers that evaluates four main types of clinical numeracy: value retrieval, arithmetic computation, relational comparison, and aggregation. To stress-test robustness, ClinicNumRobBench presents longitudinal MIMIC-IV vital-sign records in three semantically equivalent representations, including a real-world note-style variant derived from the Open Patients dataset, and instantiates queries using 42 question templates. Experiments on 14 LLMs show that value retrieval is generally strong, with most models exceeding 85% accuracy, while relational comparison and aggregation remain challenging, with some models scoring below 15%. Fine-tuning on medical data can reduce numeracy relative to base models by over 30%, and performance drops under note-style variation indicate LLM sensitivity to format. ClinicNumRobBench offers a rigorous testbed for clinically reliable numerical reasoning. Code and data URL are available on https://github.com/MinhVuong2000/ClinicNumRobBench.

Precision is of utmost importance in the realm of clinical entity extraction from clinical notes and reports. Encoder Models fine-tuned for Named Entity Recognition (NER) are an efficient choice for this purpose, as they don't hallucinate. We pre-trained an in-house BERT over clinical data and then fine-tuned it for NER. These models performed well on recall but could not close upon the high precision range, needed for clinical models. To address this challenge, we developed a Noise Removal model that refines the output of NER. The NER model assigns token-level entity tags along with probability scores for each token. Our Noise Removal (NR) model then analyzes these probability sequences and classifies predictions as either weak or strong. A naïve approach might involve filtering predictions based on low probability values; however, this method is unreliable. Owing to the characteristics of the SoftMax function, Transformer based architectures often assign disproportionately high confidence scores even to uncertain or weak predictions, making simple thresholding ineffective. To address this issue, we adopted a supervised modeling strategy in which the NR model leverages advanced features such as the Probability Density Map (PDM). The PDM captures the Semantic-Pull effect observed within Transformer embeddings, an effect that manifests in the probability distributions of NER class predictions across token sequences. This approach enables the model to classify predictions as weak or strong with significantly improved accuracy. With these NR models we were able to reduce False Positives across various clinical NER models by 50\% to 90\%.

Integrating language models (LMs) in healthcare systems holds great promise for improving medical workflows and decision-making. However, a critical barrier to their real-world adoption is the lack of reliable evaluation of their trustworthiness, especially in multilingual healthcare settings. Existing LMs are predominantly trained in high-resource languages, making them ill-equipped to handle the complexity and diversity of healthcare queries in mid- and low-resource languages, posing significant challenges for deploying them in global healthcare contexts where linguistic diversity is key. In this work, we present CLINIC, a Comprehensive Multilingual Benchmark to evaluate the trustworthiness of language models in healthcare. CLINIC systematically benchmarks LMs across five key dimensions of trustworthiness: truthfulness, fairness, safety, robustness, and privacy, operationalized through 18 diverse tasks, spanning 15 languages (covering all the major continents), and encompassing a wide array of critical healthcare topics like disease conditions, preventive actions, diagnostic tests, treatments, surgeries, and medications. Our extensive evaluation reveals that LMs struggle with factual correctness, demonstrate bias across demographic and linguistic groups, and are susceptible to privacy breaches and adversarial attacks. By highlighting these shortcomings, CLINIC lays the foundation for enhancing the global reach and safety of LMs in healthcare across diverse languages.

Clinical trial matching is the task of identifying trials for which patients may be potentially eligible. Typically, this task is labor-intensive and requires detailed verification of patient electronic health records (EHRs) against the stringent inclusion and exclusion criteria of clinical trials. This process is manual, time-intensive, and challenging to scale up, resulting in many patients missing out on potential therapeutic options. Recent advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) have made automating patient-trial matching possible, as shown in multiple concurrent research studies. However, the current approaches are confined to constrained, often synthetic datasets that do not adequately mirror the complexities encountered in real-world medical data. In this study, we present the first, end-to-end large-scale empirical evaluation of clinical trial matching using real-world EHRs. Our study showcases the capability of LLMs to accurately match patients with appropriate clinical trials. We perform experiments with proprietary LLMs, including GPT-4 and GPT-3.5, as well as our custom fine-tuned model called OncoLLM and show that OncoLLM, despite its significantly smaller size, not only outperforms GPT-3.5 but also matches the performance of qualified medical doctors. All experiments were carried out on real-world EHRs that include clinical notes and available clinical trials from a single cancer center in the United States.

Large language models (LLMs) have been widely adopted for clinical question answering (QA). Current systems can attach citations to their answers, but these often point to broad texts, leaving time-pressed clinicians unable to verify them efficiently. An alternative is to ensure that responses are verifiable by construction: providing fine-grained verbatim quotes from reference material that substantiate claims, so users can verify an answer without opening other documents. In this paper, we evaluate the ability of current models to perform this task end-to-end: from providing citations for every factual claim, to producing verbatim quotes, to ensuring that those quotes fully substantiate the claims. To do so, we build a standardized harness over four clinical practice guidelines and evaluate twelve LLMs on 222 synthetic clinical questions, measuring each of these stages separately. We find that most models can attach verbatim quotes to over 90% of their claims from prompting alone, apart from some lightweight models such as claude-haiku-4.5. Yet these quotes often fail to substantiate every detail of the claims they accompany. For instance, claude-opus-5 produces verbatim quotes for 98.0% of its claims, but fully substantiates only 37.1%. Our work provides insights into the current capability gap of LLMs in building verifiable clinical QA systems, along with artifacts for future research.

Large-language models have recently demonstrated impressive zero-shot capabilities in a variety of natural language tasks such as summarization, dialogue generation, and question-answering. Despite many promising applications in clinical medicine, adoption of these models in real-world settings has been largely limited by their tendency to generate incorrect and sometimes even toxic statements. In this study, we develop Almanac, a large language model framework augmented with retrieval capabilities for medical guideline and treatment recommendations. Performance on a novel dataset of clinical scenarios (n = 130) evaluated by a panel of 5 board-certified and resident physicians demonstrates significant increases in factuality (mean of 18% at p-value < 0.05) across all specialties, with improvements in completeness and safety. Our results demonstrate the potential for large language models to be effective tools in the clinical decision-making process, while also emphasizing the importance of careful testing and deployment to mitigate their shortcomings.

Predictive artificial intelligence (AI) offers an opportunity to improve clinical practice and patient outcomes, but risks perpetuating biases if fairness is inadequately addressed. However, the definition of "fairness" remains unclear. We conducted a scoping review to identify and critically appraise fairness metrics for clinical predictive AI. We defined a "fairness metric" as a measure quantifying whether a model discriminates (societally) against individuals or groups defined by sensitive attributes. We searched five databases (2014-2024), screening 820 records, to include 41 studies, and extracted 62 fairness metrics. Metrics were classified by performance-dependency, model output level, and base performance metric, revealing a fragmented landscape with limited clinical validation and overreliance on threshold-dependent measures. Eighteen metrics were explicitly developed for healthcare, including only one clinical utility metric. Our findings highlight conceptual challenges in defining and quantifying fairness and identify gaps in uncertainty quantification, intersectionality, and real-world applicability. Future work should prioritise clinically meaningful metrics.

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) correctly answers only 56% of our benchmark with specialized models only reaching 42%. Augmenting models with retrieved medical articles improves this performance to up to 82% (using GPT-5.2) highlighting the importance of evidence-grounding for real-world medical reasoning tasks. This work thus establishes a foundation for benchmarking and advancing both general-purpose and medical LLMs to produce reliable answers in challenging clinical contexts.

Agentic retrieval-augmented reasoning pipelines are increasingly used to structure how large language models (LLMs) incorporate external evidence in clinical decision support. These systems iteratively retrieve curated domain knowledge and synthesize it into structured reports before answer selection. Although such pipelines can improve performance, their impact on reliability under model variability remains unclear. In real-world deployment, heterogeneous models may align, diverge, or synchronize errors in ways not captured by accuracy. We evaluated 34 LLMs on 169 expert-curated publicly available radiology questions, comparing zero-shot inference with a radiology-specific multi-step agentic retrieval condition in which all models received identical structured evidence reports derived from curated radiology knowledge. Agentic inference reduced inter-model decision dispersion (median entropy 0.48 vs. 0.13) and increased robustness of correctness across models (mean 0.74 vs. 0.81). Majority consensus also increased overall (P<0.001). Consensus strength and robust correctness remained correlated under both strategies (ho=0.88 for zero-shot; ho=0.87 for agentic), although high agreement did not guarantee correctness. Response verbosity showed no meaningful association with correctness. Among 572 incorrect outputs, 72% were associated with moderate or high clinically assessed severity, although inter-rater agreement was low (appa=0.02). Agentic retrieval therefore was associated with more concentrated decision distributions, stronger consensus, and higher cross-model robustness of correctness. These findings suggest that evaluating agentic systems through accuracy or agreement alone may not always be sufficient, and that complementary analyses of stability, cross-model robustness, and potential clinical impact are needed to characterize reliability under model variability.

An accurate differential diagnosis (DDx) is a cornerstone of medical care, often reached through an iterative process of interpretation that combines clinical history, physical examination, investigations and procedures. Interactive interfaces powered by Large Language Models (LLMs) present new opportunities to both assist and automate aspects of this process. In this study, we introduce an LLM optimized for diagnostic reasoning, and evaluate its ability to generate a DDx alone or as an aid to clinicians. 20 clinicians evaluated 302 challenging, real-world medical cases sourced from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) case reports. Each case report was read by two clinicians, who were randomized to one of two assistive conditions: either assistance from search engines and standard medical resources, or LLM assistance in addition to these tools. All clinicians provided a baseline, unassisted DDx prior to using the respective assistive tools. Our LLM for DDx exhibited standalone performance that exceeded that of unassisted clinicians (top-10 accuracy 59.1% vs 33.6%, [p = 0.04]). Comparing the two assisted study arms, the DDx quality score was higher for clinicians assisted by our LLM (top-10 accuracy 51.7%) compared to clinicians without its assistance (36.1%) (McNemar's Test: 45.7, p < 0.01) and clinicians with search (44.4%) (4.75, p = 0.03). Further, clinicians assisted by our LLM arrived at more comprehensive differential lists than those without its assistance. Our study suggests that our LLM for DDx has potential to improve clinicians' diagnostic reasoning and accuracy in challenging cases, meriting further real-world evaluation for its ability to empower physicians and widen patients' access to specialist-level expertise.

The meaningful use of electronic health records (EHR) continues to progress in the digital era with clinical decision support systems augmented by artificial intelligence. A priority in improving provider experience is to overcome information overload and reduce the cognitive burden so fewer medical errors and cognitive biases are introduced during patient care. One major type of medical error is diagnostic error due to systematic or predictable errors in judgment that rely on heuristics. The potential for clinical natural language processing (cNLP) to model diagnostic reasoning in humans with forward reasoning from data to diagnosis and potentially reduce the cognitive burden and medical error has not been investigated. Existing tasks to advance the science in cNLP have largely focused on information extraction and named entity recognition through classification tasks. We introduce a novel suite of tasks coined as Diagnostic Reasoning Benchmarks, DR.BENCH, as a new benchmark for developing and evaluating cNLP models with clinical diagnostic reasoning ability. The suite includes six tasks from ten publicly available datasets addressing clinical text understanding, medical knowledge reasoning, and diagnosis generation. DR.BENCH is the first clinical suite of tasks designed to be a natural language generation framework to evaluate pre-trained language models. Experiments with state-of-the-art pre-trained generative language models using large general domain models and models that were continually trained on a medical corpus demonstrate opportunities for improvement when evaluated in DR. BENCH. We share DR. BENCH as a publicly available GitLab repository with a systematic approach to load and evaluate models for the cNLP community.

While large language models (LLMs) have shown to perform well on monolingual mathematical and commonsense reasoning, they remain unreliable for multilingual medical reasoning applications, hindering their deployment in multilingual healthcare settings. We address this by first introducing CUREMED-BENCH, a high-quality multilingual medical reasoning dataset with open-ended reasoning queries with a single verifiable answer, spanning thirteen languages, including underrepresented languages such as Amharic, Yoruba, and Swahili. Building on this dataset, we propose CURE-MED, a curriculum-informed reinforcement learning framework that integrates code-switching-aware supervised fine-tuning and Group Relative Policy Optimization to jointly improve logical correctness and language stability. Across thirteen languages, our approach consistently outperforms strong baselines and scales effectively, achieving 85.21% language consistency and 54.35% logical correctness at 7B parameters, and 94.96% language consistency and 70.04% logical correctness at 32B parameters. These results support reliable and equitable multilingual medical reasoning in LLMs. The code and dataset are available at https://cure-med.github.io/

Large language models (LLMs) have achieved expert-level performance on standardized examinations, yet multiple-choice accuracy poorly reflects real-world clinical utility and safety. As patients and clinicians increasingly use LLMs for guidance on complex conditions such as pancreatic cancer, evaluation must extend beyond general medical knowledge. Existing frameworks, such as HealthBench, rely on simulated queries and lack disease-specific depth. Moreover, high rubric-based scores do not ensure factual correctness, underscoring the need to assess hallucinations. We developed a human-in-the-loop pipeline to create expert rubrics for de-identified patient questions from the Pancreatic Cancer Action Network (PanCAN). The resulting benchmark, PanCanBench, includes 3,130 question-specific criteria across 282 authentic patient questions. We evaluated 22 proprietary and open-source LLMs using an LLM-as-a-judge framework, measuring clinical completeness, factual accuracy, and web-search integration. Models showed substantial variation in rubric-based completeness, with scores ranging from 46.5% to 82.3%. Factual errors were common, with hallucination rates (the percentages of responses containing at least one factual error) ranging from 6.0% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and GPT-4o to 53.8% for Llama-3.1-8B. Importantly, newer reasoning-optimized models did not consistently improve factuality: although o3 achieved the highest rubric score, it produced inaccuracies more frequently than other GPT-family models. Web-search integration did not inherently guarantee better responses. The average score changed from 66.8% to 63.9% for Gemini-2.5 Pro and from 73.8% to 72.8% for GPT-5 when web search was enabled. Synthetic AI-generated rubrics inflated absolute scores by 17.9 points on average while generally maintaining similar relative ranking.

In response to the pressing need for advanced clinical problem-solving tools in healthcare, we introduce BooksMed, a novel framework based on a Large Language Model (LLM). BooksMed uniquely emulates human cognitive processes to deliver evidence-based and reliable responses, utilizing the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations) framework to effectively quantify evidence strength. For clinical decision-making to be appropriately assessed, an evaluation metric that is clinically aligned and validated is required. As a solution, we present ExpertMedQA, a multispecialty clinical benchmark comprised of open-ended, expert-level clinical questions, and validated by a diverse group of medical professionals. By demanding an in-depth understanding and critical appraisal of up-to-date clinical literature, ExpertMedQA rigorously evaluates LLM performance. BooksMed outperforms existing state-of-the-art models Med-PaLM 2, Almanac, and ChatGPT in a variety of medical scenarios. Therefore, a framework that mimics human cognitive stages could be a useful tool for providing reliable and evidence-based responses to clinical inquiries.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

The increasing use of tools and solutions based on Large Language Models (LLMs) for various tasks in the medical domain has become a prominent trend. Their use in this highly critical and sensitive domain has thus raised important questions about their robustness, especially in response to variations in input, and the reliability of the generated outputs. This study addresses these questions by constructing a textual dataset based on the ICD-10-CM code descriptions, widely used in US hospitals and containing many clinical terms, and their easily reproducible rephrasing. We then benchmarked existing embedding models, either generalist or specialized in the clinical domain, in a semantic search task where the goal was to correctly match the rephrased text to the original description. Our results showed that generalist models performed better than clinical models, suggesting that existing clinical specialized models are more sensitive to small changes in input that confuse them. The highlighted problem of specialized models may be due to the fact that they have not been trained on sufficient data, and in particular on datasets that are not diverse enough to have a reliable global language understanding, which is still necessary for accurate handling of medical documents.

Finding relevant literature underpins the practice of evidence-based medicine. From 2014 to 2016, TREC conducted a clinical decision support track, wherein participants were tasked with finding articles relevant to clinical questions posed by physicians. In total, 87 teams have participated over the past three years, generating 395 runs. During this period, each team has trialled a variety of methods. While there was significant overlap in the methods employed by different teams, the results were varied. Due to the diversity of the platforms used, the results arising from the different techniques are not directly comparable, reducing the ability to build on previous work. By using a stable platform, we have been able to compare different document and query processing techniques, allowing us to experiment with different search parameters. We have used our system to reproduce leading teams runs, and compare the results obtained. By benchmarking our indexing and search techniques, we can statistically test a variety of hypotheses, paving the way for further research.

We develop an algorithm which exceeds the performance of board certified cardiologists in detecting a wide range of heart arrhythmias from electrocardiograms recorded with a single-lead wearable monitor. We build a dataset with more than 500 times the number of unique patients than previously studied corpora. On this dataset, we train a 34-layer convolutional neural network which maps a sequence of ECG samples to a sequence of rhythm classes. Committees of board-certified cardiologists annotate a gold standard test set on which we compare the performance of our model to that of 6 other individual cardiologists. We exceed the average cardiologist performance in both recall (sensitivity) and precision (positive predictive value).

We present Eir Thai Medical LLM, a large language model with 8 billion parameters, specifically designed to enhance the accuracy of handling medical tasks in the Thai language. This model focuses on providing clear and easy-to-understand answers for both healthcare professionals and patients, thereby improving the efficiency of diagnosis and treatment processes. Human evaluation was conducted to ensure that the model adheres to care standards and provides unbiased answers. To prioritize data security, the model is deployed within the hospital's internal network, ensuring both high security and faster processing speeds. The internal API connection is secured with encryption and strict authentication measures to prevent data leaks and unauthorized access. We evaluated several open-source large language models with 8 billion parameters on four medical benchmarks: MedQA, MedMCQA, PubMedQA, and the medical subset of MMLU. The best-performing baselines were used to develop Eir Thai Medical LLM. Our evaluation employed multiple questioning strategies, including zero-shot, few-shot, chain-of-thought reasoning, and ensemble/self-consistency voting methods. Our model outperformed commercially available Thai-language large language models by more than 10%. In addition, we developed enhanced model testing tailored for clinical use in Thai across 18 clinical tasks, where our model exceeded GPT-4o performance by more than 11%

Large language models have exhibited exceptional performance on various Natural Language Processing (NLP) tasks, leveraging techniques such as the pre-training, and instruction fine-tuning. Despite these advances, their effectiveness in medical applications is limited, due to challenges such as factual inaccuracies, reasoning abilities, and lack grounding in real-world experience. In this study, we present ClinicalGPT, a language model explicitly designed and optimized for clinical scenarios. By incorporating extensive and diverse real-world data, such as medical records, domain-specific knowledge, and multi-round dialogue consultations in the training process, ClinicalGPT is better prepared to handle multiple clinical task. Furthermore, we introduce a comprehensive evaluation framework that includes medical knowledge question-answering, medical exams, patient consultations, and diagnostic analysis of medical records. Our results demonstrate that ClinicalGPT significantly outperforms other models in these tasks, highlighting the effectiveness of our approach in adapting large language models to the critical domain of healthcare.

Unstructured clinical notes contain essential patient information but are challenging for physicians to search and interpret efficiently. Although large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in question answering (QA), most existing systems lack transparency, usability, and alignment with clinical workflows. This work introduces an interactive QA system that enables physicians to query clinical notes via text or voice and receive extractive answers highlighted directly in the note for traceability. The system was built using OpenAI models with zero-shot prompting and evaluated across multiple metrics, including exact string match, word overlap, SentenceTransformer similarity, and BERTScore. Results show that while exact match scores ranged from 47 to 62 percent, semantic similarity scores exceeded 87 percent, indicating strong contextual alignment even when wording varied. To assess usability, the system was also evaluated using simulated clinical personas. Seven diverse physician and nurse personas interacted with the system across scenario-based tasks and provided structured feedback. The evaluations highlighted strengths in intuitive design and answer accessibility, alongside opportunities for enhancing explanation clarity.

Background: Electronic Health Records hold detailed longitudinal information about each patient's health status and general clinical history, a large portion of which is stored within the unstructured text. Existing approaches focus mostly on structured data and a subset of single-domain outcomes. We explore how temporal modelling of patients from free text and structured data, using deep generative transformers can be used to forecast a wide range of future disorders, substances, procedures or findings. Methods: We present Foresight, a novel transformer-based pipeline that uses named entity recognition and linking tools to convert document text into structured, coded concepts, followed by providing probabilistic forecasts for future medical events such as disorders, substances, procedures and findings. We processed the entire free-text portion from three different hospital datasets totalling 811336 patients covering both physical and mental health. Findings: On tests in two UK hospitals (King's College Hospital, South London and Maudsley) and the US MIMIC-III dataset precision@10 0.68, 0.76 and 0.88 was achieved for forecasting the next disorder in a patient timeline, while precision@10 of 0.80, 0.81 and 0.91 was achieved for forecasting the next biomedical concept. Foresight was also validated on 34 synthetic patient timelines by five clinicians and achieved relevancy of 97% for the top forecasted candidate disorder. As a generative model, it can forecast follow-on biomedical concepts for as many steps as required. Interpretation: Foresight is a general-purpose model for biomedical concept modelling that can be used for real-world risk forecasting, virtual trials and clinical research to study the progression of disorders, simulate interventions and counterfactuals, and educational purposes.

Global healthcare providers are exploring use of large language models (LLMs) to provide medical advice to the public. LLMs now achieve nearly perfect scores on medical licensing exams, but this does not necessarily translate to accurate performance in real-world settings. We tested if LLMs can assist members of the public in identifying underlying conditions and choosing a course of action (disposition) in ten medical scenarios in a controlled study with 1,298 participants. Participants were randomly assigned to receive assistance from an LLM (GPT-4o, Llama 3, Command R+) or a source of their choice (control). Tested alone, LLMs complete the scenarios accurately, correctly identifying conditions in 94.9% of cases and disposition in 56.3% on average. However, participants using the same LLMs identified relevant conditions in less than 34.5% of cases and disposition in less than 44.2%, both no better than the control group. We identify user interactions as a challenge to the deployment of LLMs for medical advice. Standard benchmarks for medical knowledge and simulated patient interactions do not predict the failures we find with human participants. Moving forward, we recommend systematic human user testing to evaluate interactive capabilities prior to public deployments in healthcare.

Large Language Models (LLMs) hold great promise to revolutionize current clinical systems for their superior capacities on medical text processing tasks and medical licensing exams. Meanwhile, traditional ML models such as SVM and XGBoost have still been mainly adopted in clinical prediction tasks. An emerging question is Can LLMs beat traditional ML models in clinical prediction? Thus, we build a new benchmark ClinicalBench to comprehensively study the clinical predictive modeling capacities of both general-purpose and medical LLMs, and compare them with traditional ML models. ClinicalBench embraces three common clinical prediction tasks, two databases, 14 general-purpose LLMs, 8 medical LLMs, and 11 traditional ML models. Through extensive empirical investigation, we discover that both general-purpose and medical LLMs, even with different model scales, diverse prompting or fine-tuning strategies, still cannot beat traditional ML models in clinical prediction yet, shedding light on their potential deficiency in clinical reasoning and decision-making. We call for caution when practitioners adopt LLMs in clinical applications. ClinicalBench can be utilized to bridge the gap between LLMs' development for healthcare and real-world clinical practice.

Access to the right evidence does not guarantee that large language models (LLMs) will reason with it correctly. This gap between retrieval and reasoning is especially concerning in clinical settings, where outputs must align with structured protocols. We study this gap using Written Exposure Therapy (WET) guidelines as a testbed. In evaluating model responses to curated clinician-vetted questions, we find that errors persist even when authoritative passages are provided. To address this, we propose an evaluation framework that measures accuracy, consistency, and fidelity of reasoning. Our results highlight both the potential and the risks: retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can constrain outputs, but safe deployment requires assessing reasoning as rigorously as retrieval.

Objective: Question answering (QA) systems have the potential to improve the quality of clinical care by providing health professionals with the latest and most relevant evidence. However, QA systems have not been widely adopted. This systematic review aims to characterize current medical QA systems, assess their suitability for healthcare, and identify areas of improvement. Materials and methods: We searched PubMed, IEEE Xplore, ACM Digital Library, ACL Anthology and forward and backward citations on 7th February 2023. We included peer-reviewed journal and conference papers describing the design and evaluation of biomedical QA systems. Two reviewers screened titles, abstracts, and full-text articles. We conducted a narrative synthesis and risk of bias assessment for each study. We assessed the utility of biomedical QA systems. Results: We included 79 studies and identified themes, including question realism, answer reliability, answer utility, clinical specialism, systems, usability, and evaluation methods. Clinicians' questions used to train and evaluate QA systems were restricted to certain sources, types and complexity levels. No system communicated confidence levels in the answers or sources. Many studies suffered from high risks of bias and applicability concerns. Only 8 studies completely satisfied any criterion for clinical utility, and only 7 reported user evaluations. Most systems were built with limited input from clinicians. Discussion: While machine learning methods have led to increased accuracy, most studies imperfectly reflected real-world healthcare information needs. Key research priorities include developing more realistic healthcare QA datasets and considering the reliability of answer sources, rather than merely focusing on accuracy.

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.

Pathology vision-language models (VLMs) have shown strong visual perception ability, but their robustness in the language domain remains poorly characterized. Existing pathology VLM benchmarks largely rely on canonical closed-set prompts or perturb only generic templates, treating language as a fixed evaluation component rather than a variable axis of model behavior. In clinical practice, however, diagnostic language varies across reports, institutions, and candidate diagnoses. We introduce PathLang, a language-centered and clinically grounded zero-shot benchmark. PathLang holds the underlying slides, ground-truth labels, and image-text evaluation direction fixed while systematically varying only the diagnostic language, so that performance differences reflect how a diagnosis is phrased rather than what is imaged. The language variation follows how pathologists actually rephrase diagnoses (terminology, specificity, and reporting style), and all prompts and candidate pools are validated by six board-certified pathologists. PathLang covers four task families: (1) zero-shot classification with image-text alignment analysis, (2) cross-modal retrieval, (3) paraphrase robustness, including semantic-equivalence paraphrases, length and reporting-style variation, and prompt ensembling, and (4) open-vocabulary diagnosis retrieval over four candidate pools with distinct forms of semantic competition. Across nine VLMs and five public datasets spanning four organs, we find that performance is highly sensitive to clinically equivalent paraphrases, varies substantially across forms of semantic competition, and that image-text alignment quality does not necessarily translate into inter-class separability. We release the prompt corpus, candidate pools, pre-computed text embeddings, and evaluation code at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/PathLang.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate clinical narratives that are insufficiently grounded in patient-specific evidence. In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), errors can propagate from etiology and pathogenesis through syndrome diagnosis and treatment principles to prescription generation. We developed TCMClinicalReason-Bench using 2,000 multicenter electronic health record cases to distinguish case-grounded responses from fluent but unsupported diagnostic and therapeutic conclusions. Five general-purpose and two TCM-specific LLMs were evaluated in zero-shot settings. An evidence-constrained rubric assessed seven diagnostic and therapeutic components and three cross-block relations, allowing case-supported alternatives. Qwen3.7-Plus with TCM retrieval served as the automated judge, alongside parallel blinded ratings by five senior TCM clinicians on a 600-case subset. Structural completeness was nearly saturated (99.3-100.0%), but normalized content scores ranged from 40.7% to 54.1%. The five general-purpose models averaged 50.0%, versus 41.3% for the two smaller TCM-specific models. Cross-block logic consistency ranged from 60.8% to 66.8% and correlated moderately with content across cases (Pearson's r = 0.515-0.656). Deficits were greatest in prescription generation, prescription analysis, and symptom-guided modification. In judge stress testing on 100 independent cases, perturbation detection rates across the three relations were 57%, 56%, and 31%, with contradictions detected more reliably than omissions. Separating component quality from cross-block consistency localizes failures missed by endpoint and completeness metrics and identifies where clinician oversight remains necessary.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare, but their reliability is heavily influenced by user-driven factors such as question phrasing and the completeness of clinical information. In this study, we examined how misinformation framing, source authority, model persona, and omission of key clinical details affect the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of LLM outputs. We conducted two experiments: one introducing misleading external opinions with varying assertiveness (perturbation test), and another removing specific categories of patient information (ablation test). Using public datasets (MedQA and Medbullets), we evaluated proprietary models (GPT-4o, Claude 3.5 Sonnet, Claude 3.5 Haiku, Gemini 1.5 Pro, Gemini 1.5 Flash) and open-source models (LLaMA 3 8B, LLaMA 3 Med42 8B, DeepSeek R1 8B). All models were vulnerable to user-driven misinformation, with proprietary models especially affected by definitive and authoritative language. Assertive tone had the greatest negative impact on accuracy. In the ablation test, omitting physical exam findings and lab results caused the most significant performance drop. Although proprietary models had higher baseline accuracy, their performance declined sharply under misinformation. These results highlight the need for well-structured prompts and complete clinical context. Users should avoid authoritative framing of misinformation and provide full clinical details, especially for complex cases.

In medicine, claims remain valid when supported by empirical evidence grounded in stable biological reality. In law, by contrast, truth is contingent, defined by jurisdiction, temporal validity, and the hierarchy of authoritative sources. The recent success of large language models (LLMs) on medical licensing examinations has encouraged an expectation of comparable legal competence. This analogy, however, obscures a critical distinction between domains. Unlike in medicine, legal performance often depends less on inference than on determining when external authority is applicable, valid, and non-contradictory. We introduce a comparative diagnostic framework evaluating legal reasoning against medical baselines along four axes (knowledge recall, grounding, confidence, and robustness), uncovering a sharp domain asymmetry when applied to a new benchmark that encodes temporal validity and normative relationships. While medical LLMs reliably benefit from verified sources, legal LLMs struggle to assess when retrieved citations are useful or misleading, exhibiting overconfidence in perturbed contexts and sensitivity to superficial formatting cues. Increased model scale amplifies this tendency, revealing that stronger instruction following can coincide with weaker resistance to authoritative perturbations. These findings show that LLMs treat law as unstructured text rather than binding precedent, while revealing a tendency to over-trust authoritative but false information when external references conflict with a model's internal knowledge.

Medical models are judged not only on correctness, but on whether reported confidence matches actual accuracy. Generalist multimodal medical models have expanded what a single model can perceive, yet they still express bounded decisions such as diagnoses, findings or cell counts as generated text, so the reported probability reflects the next token rather than the decision itself. Motivated by decision-native interfaces such as Jev, we introduce OmniMed-Jev, which represents each medical decision as a Choice, Noul or Score decision over a runtime-supplied candidate set and returns a full distribution over that set: mutually exclusive classes, binary presence of a finding, or a bounded ordered value. The design is omni in three respects: it accepts diverse imaging modalities, covers different prediction tasks, and expresses them through one candidate-conditioned probability model, so heterogeneous outputs become comparable probabilities rather than task-specific strings. In an interface-controlled comparison against a generative baseline trained on the same backbone, data and schedule, OmniMed-Jev's reported probabilities track observed correctness far more closely, reducing calibration error by up to an order of magnitude and reliability error by up to two, while point-prediction performance remains comparable; counting is the one family where the generative baseline stays ahead. Making the decision distribution the model's output is not a format change but what turns reported numbers into probabilities that mean what they say. These results support explicit decision modeling as a way to make reported confidence meaningful within the evaluated tasks, and they are not evidence of clinical readiness: the comparison cannot separate the interface from associated training differences, which we state alongside the results. Code is available at github.com/lytang63/OmniMed-Jev.

Clinical trial matching is a key process in health delivery and discovery. In practice, it is plagued by overwhelming unstructured data and unscalable manual processing. In this paper, we conduct a systematic study on scaling clinical trial matching using large language models (LLMs), with oncology as the focus area. Our study is grounded in a clinical trial matching system currently in test deployment at a large U.S. health network. Initial findings are promising: out of box, cutting-edge LLMs, such as GPT-4, can already structure elaborate eligibility criteria of clinical trials and extract complex matching logic (e.g., nested AND/OR/NOT). While still far from perfect, LLMs substantially outperform prior strong baselines and may serve as a preliminary solution to help triage patient-trial candidates with humans in the loop. Our study also reveals a few significant growth areas for applying LLMs to end-to-end clinical trial matching, such as context limitation and accuracy, especially in structuring patient information from longitudinal medical records.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly explored for clinical decision support, yet most evaluations are conducted in English, leaving their reliability in other languages uncertain. Here we evaluate the impact of prompting language on diagnostic reasoning and final diagnosis accuracy by comparing English and French performance across five LLMs (o3, DeepSeek-R1, GPT-4-Turbo, Llama-3.1-405B-Instruct, and BioMistral-7B). A total of 180 clinical vignettes covering 16 medical specialties were assessed by two physicians using an 18-point scale evaluating both diagnosis accuracy and reasoning quality. Four of the five models performed better in English (mean difference 0.37-0.91, adjusted p < 0.05), with the gap spanning multiple aspects of reasoning, including differential diagnosis, logical structure, and internal validity. o3 was the only model showing no overall language effect. These findings demonstrate that prompting language remains a critical determinant of LLM clinical performance, with implications for equitable linguistico-cultural deployment worldwide.

As opposed to evaluating computation and logic-based reasoning, current benchmarks for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in medicine are primarily focused on question-answering involving domain knowledge and descriptive reasoning. While such qualitative capabilities are vital to medical diagnosis, in real-world scenarios, doctors frequently use clinical calculators that follow quantitative equations and rule-based reasoning paradigms for evidence-based decision support. To this end, we propose MedCalc-Bench, a first-of-its-kind dataset focused on evaluating the medical calculation capability of LLMs. MedCalc-Bench contains an evaluation set of over 1000 manually reviewed instances from 55 different medical calculation tasks. Each instance in MedCalc-Bench consists of a patient note, a question requesting to compute a specific medical value, a ground truth answer, and a step-by-step explanation showing how the answer is obtained. While our evaluation results show the potential of LLMs in this area, none of them are effective enough for clinical settings. Common issues include extracting the incorrect entities, not using the correct equation or rules for a calculation task, or incorrectly performing the arithmetic for the computation. We hope our study highlights the quantitative knowledge and reasoning gaps in LLMs within medical settings, encouraging future improvements of LLMs for various clinical calculation tasks.

In natural language processing applied to the clinical domain, utilizing large language models has emerged as a promising avenue for error detection and correction on clinical notes, a knowledge-intensive task for which annotated data is scarce. This paper presents MedReAct'N'MedReFlex, which leverages a suite of four LLM-based medical agents. The MedReAct agent initiates the process by observing, analyzing, and taking action, generating trajectories to guide the search to target a potential error in the clinical notes. Subsequently, the MedEval agent employs five evaluators to assess the targeted error and the proposed correction. In cases where MedReAct's actions prove insufficient, the MedReFlex agent intervenes, engaging in reflective analysis and proposing alternative strategies. Finally, the MedFinalParser agent formats the final output, preserving the original style while ensuring the integrity of the error correction process. One core component of our method is our RAG pipeline based on our ClinicalCorp corpora. Among other well-known sources containing clinical guidelines and information, we preprocess and release the open-source MedWiki dataset for clinical RAG application. Our results demonstrate the central role of our RAG approach with ClinicalCorp leveraged through the MedReAct'N'MedReFlex framework. It achieved the ninth rank on the MEDIQA-CORR 2024 final leaderboard.

Software is used in critical applications in our day-to-day life and it is important to ensure its correctness. One popular approach to assess correctness is to evaluate software on tests. If a test fails, it indicates a fault in the software under test; if all tests pass correctly, one may assume that the software is correct. However, the reliability of these results depends on the test suite considered, and there is a risk of false negatives (i.e. software that passes all available tests but contains bugs because some cases are not tested). Therefore, it is important to consider error-inducing test cases when evaluating software. To support data-driven creation of such a test-suite, which is especially of interest for testing software synthesized from large language models, we curate a dataset (Codehacks) of programming problems together with corresponding error-inducing test cases (i.e., "hacks"). This dataset is collected from the wild, in particular, from the Codeforces online judge platform. The dataset comprises 288,617 hacks for 5,578 programming problems, each with a natural language description, as well as the source code for 2,196 submitted solutions to these problems that can be broken with their corresponding hacks. Keywords: competitive programming, language model, dataset

Cancer patients are increasingly turning to large language models (LLMs) as a new form of internet search for medical information, making it critical to assess how well these models handle complex, personalized questions. However, current medical benchmarks focus on medical exams or consumer-searched questions and do not evaluate LLMs on real patient questions with detailed clinical contexts. In this paper, we first evaluate LLMs on cancer-related questions drawn from real patients, reviewed by three hematology oncology physicians. While responses are generally accurate, with GPT-4-Turbo scoring 4.13 out of 5, the models frequently fail to recognize or address false presuppositions in the questions-posing risks to safe medical decision-making. To study this limitation systematically, we introduce Cancer-Myth, an expert-verified adversarial dataset of 585 cancer-related questions with false presuppositions. On this benchmark, no frontier LLM -- including GPT-4o, Gemini-1.Pro, and Claude-3.5-Sonnet -- corrects these false presuppositions more than 30% of the time. Even advanced medical agentic methods do not prevent LLMs from ignoring false presuppositions. These findings expose a critical gap in the clinical reliability of LLMs and underscore the need for more robust safeguards in medical AI systems.

Foundation Models that are capable of processing and generating multi-modal data have transformed AI's role in medicine. However, a key limitation of their reliability is hallucination, where inaccurate or fabricated information can impact clinical decisions and patient safety. We define medical hallucination as any instance in which a model generates misleading medical content. This paper examines the unique characteristics, causes, and implications of medical hallucinations, with a particular focus on how these errors manifest themselves in real-world clinical scenarios. Our contributions include (1) a taxonomy for understanding and addressing medical hallucinations, (2) benchmarking models using medical hallucination dataset and physician-annotated LLM responses to real medical cases, providing direct insight into the clinical impact of hallucinations, and (3) a multi-national clinician survey on their experiences with medical hallucinations. Our results reveal that inference techniques such as Chain-of-Thought (CoT) and Search Augmented Generation can effectively reduce hallucination rates. However, despite these improvements, non-trivial levels of hallucination persist. These findings underscore the ethical and practical imperative for robust detection and mitigation strategies, establishing a foundation for regulatory policies that prioritize patient safety and maintain clinical integrity as AI becomes more integrated into healthcare. The feedback from clinicians highlights the urgent need for not only technical advances but also for clearer ethical and regulatory guidelines to ensure patient safety. A repository organizing the paper resources, summaries, and additional information is available at https://github.com/mitmedialab/medical hallucination.

While Large Language Models (LLMs) can generate fluent and convincing responses, they are not necessarily correct. This is especially apparent in the popular decompose-then-verify factuality evaluation pipeline, where LLMs evaluate generations by decomposing the generations into individual, valid claims. Factuality evaluation is especially important for medical answers, since incorrect medical information could seriously harm the patient. However, existing factuality systems are a poor match for the medical domain, as they are typically only evaluated on objective, entity-centric, formulaic texts such as biographies and historical topics. This differs from condition-dependent, conversational, hypothetical, sentence-structure diverse, and subjective medical answers, which makes decomposition into valid facts challenging. We propose MedScore, a new pipeline to decompose medical answers into condition-aware valid facts and verify against in-domain corpora. Our method extracts up to three times more valid facts than existing methods, reducing hallucination and vague references, and retaining condition-dependency in facts. The resulting factuality score substantially varies by decomposition method, verification corpus, and used backbone LLM, highlighting the importance of customizing each step for reliable factuality evaluation by using our generalizable and modularized pipeline for domain adaptation.

Medical question-answering (QA) is a critical task for evaluating how effectively large language models (LLMs) encode clinical knowledge and assessing their potential applications in medicine. Despite showing promise on multiple-choice tests, LLMs frequently struggle with open-ended medical questions, producing responses with dangerous hallucinations or lacking comprehensive coverage of critical aspects. Existing approaches attempt to address these challenges through domain-specific fine-tuning, but this proves resource-intensive and difficult to scale across models. To improve the comprehensiveness and factuality of medical responses, we propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning. Our method guides LLMs through an seven-step cognitive process inspired by clinical diagnosis, enabling more accurate and complete answers without additional training. Experiments on the MedLFQA benchmark demonstrate that our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models. Notably, this improvement transfers to smaller models, highlighting the method's efficiency and scalability. Our code and datasets are available.

The integration of Artificial Intelligence (AI), especially Large Language Models (LLMs), into the clinical diagnosis process offers significant potential to improve the efficiency and accessibility of medical care. While LLMs have shown some promise in the medical domain, their application in clinical diagnosis remains underexplored, especially in real-world clinical practice, where highly sophisticated, patient-specific decisions need to be made. Current evaluations of LLMs in this field are often narrow in scope, focusing on specific diseases or specialties and employing simplified diagnostic tasks. To bridge this gap, we introduce CliBench, a novel benchmark developed from the MIMIC IV dataset, offering a comprehensive and realistic assessment of LLMs' capabilities in clinical diagnosis. This benchmark not only covers diagnoses from a diverse range of medical cases across various specialties but also incorporates tasks of clinical significance: treatment procedure identification, lab test ordering and medication prescriptions. Supported by structured output ontologies, CliBench enables a precise and multi-granular evaluation, offering an in-depth understanding of LLM's capability on diverse clinical tasks of desired granularity. We conduct a zero-shot evaluation of leading LLMs to assess their proficiency in clinical decision-making. Our preliminary results shed light on the potential and limitations of current LLMs in clinical settings, providing valuable insights for future advancements in LLM-powered healthcare.

Inpatient clinical reasoning is a sequential decision under partial observability: the clinician sees the admission so far and must choose the next action whose downstream consequences are not yet visible. Existing clinical-LLM evaluations and RL rewards signals collapse this into closed-form retrieval, clinical journey leakage, or unanchored LLM-as-judge scoring. We introduce CLR-voyance, a framework that reformulates inpatient reasoning as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) and supervises it with rewards that are simultaneously outcome-grounded and clinician-validated. We instantiate the formulation as CLR-POMDP, which partitions successful patient journeys into a policy-visible past and an oracle-only future. Using the past information, an oracle LLM generates a case-specific query-answer pair, and the first adaptive rubric for clinical reasoning which is verifiable in the future of the patient journey. These rubrics are used for both post-training and evaluation of models for inpatient clinical reasoning. We post-train Qwen3-8B and MedGemma-4B with GRPO followed by model merging, yielding state-of-the-art inpatient clinical reasoning while retaining generalist capabilities. CLR-voyance-8B achieves 84.91% on CLR-POMDP, ahead of frontier medical reasoning models like GPT-5 (77.83%) and MedGemma-27B (66.66%) and has comparable or better performance on existing medical benchmarks. To ensure a clinically meaningful setting, we conduct a large-scale clinician alignment study, where physicians curate per-case rubrics, grade candidate responses, and provide blinded pairwise preferences of model reasoning. This study provides insights on clinical LLM-as-a-judge and clinical preference-model selection, which can inform the community at large. CLR-voyance has been deployed for 6+ months at a partner public hospital, drafting thousands of reasoning-heavy inpatient notes.

Recent advances in reasoning with large language models (LLMs)has shown remarkable reasoning capabilities in domains such as mathematics and coding, yet their application to clinical diagnosis remains underexplored. Here, we introduce ClinicalGPT-R1, a reasoning enhanced generalist large language model for disease diagnosis. Trained on a dataset of 20,000 real-world clinical records, ClinicalGPT-R1 leverages diverse training strategies to enhance diagnostic reasoning. To benchmark performance, we curated MedBench-Hard, a challenging dataset spanning seven major medical specialties and representative diseases. Experimental results demonstrate that ClinicalGPT-R1 outperforms GPT-4o in Chinese diagnostic tasks and achieves comparable performance to GPT-4 in English settings. This comparative study effectively validates the superior performance of ClinicalGPT-R1 in disease diagnosis tasks. Resources are available at https://github.com/medfound/medfound.

Given the dominance of dense retrievers that do not generalize well beyond their training dataset distributions, domain-specific test sets are essential in evaluating retrieval. There are few test datasets for retrieval systems intended for use by healthcare providers in a point-of-care setting. To fill this gap we have collaborated with medical professionals to create CURE, an ad-hoc retrieval test dataset for passage ranking with 2000 queries spanning 10 medical domains with a monolingual (English) and two cross-lingual (French/Spanish -> English) conditions. In this paper, we describe how CURE was constructed and provide baseline results to showcase its effectiveness as an evaluation tool. CURE is published with a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 4.0 license and can be accessed on Hugging Face.

Although large language models (LLMs) demonstrate expert-level medical knowledge, aligning their open-ended outputs with fine-grained clinician preferences remains challenging. Existing methods often rely on coarse objectives or unreliable automated judges that are weakly grounded in professional guidelines. We propose a two-stage framework to address this gap. First, we introduce HealthRubrics, a dataset of 7,034 physician-verified preference examples in which clinicians refine LLM-drafted rubrics to meet rigorous medical standards. Second, we distill these rubrics into HealthPrinciples: 119 broadly reusable, clinically grounded principles organized by clinical dimensions, enabling scalable supervision beyond manual annotation. We use HealthPrinciples for (1) offline alignment by synthesizing rubrics for unlabeled queries and (2) an inference-time tool for guided self-revision. A 30B parameter model that activates only 3B parameters at inference trained with our framework achieves 33.4% on HealthBench-Hard, outperforming much larger models including Deepseek-R1 and o3, establishing a resource-efficient baseline for clinical alignment.

Large Language Models are transforming the support for clinical decision and their application in real scenarios. Yet, most benchmarks are conducted in English, and cross-lingual evaluation is needed to tackle the language gaps in global access. We introduce ClinicalBr, the first bilingual benchmark for clinical decision built from real Brazilian case reports. The corpus contains 2,892 cases drawn from 28 SciELO medical journals, spanning 18 specialties, and is structured as parallel Portuguese-English pairs. Each case supports four evaluation tasks: diagnosis retrieval, differential diagnosis, exam recommendation, and treatment planning. We evaluate four models: MedGemma-27B, Sabiá-4, DeepSeek-R1, and o3-mini, across both languages. The central finding is that the Portuguese-English performance gap is task-dependent, not general. In diagnosis retrieval, English yields a consistent advantage across all models, with +7.5-12.1 accuracy points. This advantage disappears in differential diagnosis, exam recommendation, and treatment planning, where confidence intervals cross zero for most models and Portuguese completeness scores are marginally higher. Brazilian-endemic conditions proved easier than the full corpus, not harder, indicating that tropical presentations are adequately represented in current pre-training. Exam recommendation was the hardest task across all models and both languages, with F1 scores below 0.10, well below the differential diagnosis ceiling of 0.20-0.27.

Longitudinal clinical notes contain rich evidence of how patients evolve over time, but converting this signal into training supervision for clinical prediction remains challenging. We extend Foresight Learning to clinical prediction by converting time-ordered MIMIC-III notes into examples consisting of past patient context, a natural-language question about a possible future event, and a label resolved from later documentation. This process yields 6,900 prediction examples from 702 admissions across medications, procedures, organ support, microbiology, and mortality. A small LoRA adapter trained on these examples improves over the prompted base model, reducing expected calibration error from 0.1269 to 0.0398 and Brier score from 0.199 to 0.145, while slightly outperforming GPT-5 point estimates on held-out questions. The approach enables reusable clinical prediction supervision from longitudinal notes without hand-engineered structured features or endpoint-specific classifiers.

Large language model (LLM) assistants are being deployed to clinicians across health systems, and judgments about their readiness rest largely on benchmark scores, most of them derived from examination questions or curated cases. A benchmark predicts performance in deployment only to the extent that its items resemble real use, yet whether benchmarks reflect the work these systems receive has rarely been measured. Here we analyze 127,833 queries sent by 6,342 physicians, advanced practice providers and nurses in 35 specialties to an institutional assistant during an eight-month roll-out. We characterize each query with RCQ-Map, a clinician-validated framework grounded in taxonomies of clinical questions and of LLM evaluation, which records its task, intent, answerability, missing information and potential harm. Documentation and administration (36.2%) and knowledge retrieval (28.9%) made up nearly two-thirds of use, and diagnosis 3.7%; more than a third of queries could not be answered well as posed. Applying RCQ-Map to 58 public benchmarks drawn from major evaluation suites and frontier model reports, which we assemble into the Clinical AI Benchmark Atlas, showed that the median benchmark contained no documentation requests and shared 31% of the task mix of real use, less than an even spread across task categories would. Benchmarks in suites designed to resemble clinical practice were individually no closer to real use than those used in frontier model reports. Benchmark scores therefore say little about how clinical AI performs on most of the work it is actually given, and evaluation should be matched to real clinical use.

Clinical diagnosis is critical in medical practice, typically requiring a continuous and evolving process that includes primary diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and final diagnosis. However, most existing clinical diagnostic tasks are single-step processes, which does not align with the complex multi-step diagnostic procedures found in real-world clinical settings. In this paper, we propose a multi-step diagnostic task and annotate a clinical diagnostic dataset (MSDiagnosis). This dataset includes primary diagnosis, differential diagnosis, and final diagnosis questions. Additionally, we propose a novel and effective framework. This framework combines forward inference, backward inference, reflection, and refinement, enabling the LLM to self-evaluate and adjust its diagnostic results. To assess the effectiveness of our proposed method, we design and conduct extensive experiments. The experimental results demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed method. We also provide a comprehensive experimental analysis and suggest future research directions for this task.

Retrieval-based factuality evaluation, where LLM-generated claims are verified against evidence from authoritative medical corpora, has become the dominant paradigm for scalable hallucination detection in high-stakes clinical settings. Despite the urgency of reliable and transparent medical fact verification, most systems measure performance with aggregate metrics like F1, which obscure where and why failures occur. Existing RAG diagnostics require gold answers or annotated gold evidence, neither of which exists in this regime. We introduce two comprehensive taxonomies, grounded in a case study on the open-ended MedExpert dataset and 3 closed-ended datasets, decomposing failures into retrieval-stage errors along five quality dimensions, and verifier-reasoning errors into six consecutive steps. We adapt an automatic pattern induction pipeline using LLM-as-Judge to label evidence quality and classify verifier reasoning errors at scale, and then stress-test our findings across 4 retrieval methods and 6 frontier verifier models. Our analysis reveals that scaling model size, adding reasoning effort, expanding to authoritative web sources, and applying medical fine-tuning do not resolve these failure modes, demonstrating that they represent fundamental limitations of the retrieve-then-verify paradigm in open-ended medical settings rather than artifacts of outdated systems. We release our code and data at https://anonymous.4open.science/r/Medical_RAG_eval-4AB5 for the full reproducibility of our results.

Laboratory test results are an important and generally high dimensional component of a patient's Electronic Health Record (EHR). We train embedding representations (via Word2Vec and GloVe) for LOINC codes of laboratory tests from the EHRs of about 80,000 patients at a cancer center. To include information about lab test outcomes, we also train embeddings on the concatenation of a LOINC code with a symbol indicating normality or abnormality of the result. We observe several clinically meaningful similarities among LOINC embeddings trained over our data. For the embeddings of the concatenation of LOINCs with abnormality codes, we evaluate the performance for mortality prediction tasks and the ability to preserve ordinality properties: i.e. a lab test with normal outcome should be more similar to an abnormal one than to the a very abnormal one.

Objective: Using natural language processing (NLP) to find sentences that state treatment plans in a clinical note, would automate plan extraction and would further enable their use in tools that help providers and care managers. However, as in the most NLP tasks on clinical text, creating gold standard to train and test NLP models is tedious and expensive. Fortuitously, sometimes but not always clinical notes contain sections with a heading that identifies the section as a plan. Leveraging contents of such labeled sections as a noisy training data, we assessed accuracy of NLP models trained with the data. Methods: We used common variations of plan headings and rule-based heuristics to find plan sections with headings in clinical notes, and we extracted sentences from them and formed a noisy training data of plan sentences. We trained Support Vector Machine (SVM) and Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models with the data. We measured accuracy of the trained models on the noisy dataset using ten-fold cross validation and separately on a set-aside manually annotated dataset. Results: About 13% of 117,730 clinical notes contained treatment plans sections with recognizable headings in the 1001 longitudinal patient records that were obtained from Cleveland Clinic under an IRB approval. We were able to extract and create a noisy training data of 13,492 plan sentences from the clinical notes. CNN achieved best F measures, 0.91 and 0.97 in the cross-validation and set-aside evaluation experiments respectively. SVM slightly underperformed with F measures of 0.89 and 0.96 in the same experiments. Conclusion: Our study showed that the training supervised learning models using noisy plan sentences was effective in identifying them in all clinical notes. More broadly, sections with informal headings in clinical notes can be a good source for generating effective training data.

Applying a valid medication-safety rule when its patient-specific conditions are not met can produce an incorrect decision. Existing medical evaluations largely use isolated and fixed scenarios. A model may therefore answer correctly by recalling a drug-risk association without showing that it used patient information to decide whether the rule applies. To address this gap, we introduce MedPIC-Bench, a benchmark of source-verifiable recommendations and expert-validated questions for patient-specific medication-safety reasoning. It combines guideline-following questions with paired counterfactual questions in which a controlled change in patient information changes whether a rule applies. The benchmark contains 467 questions annotated along six clinical and reasoning dimensions. Across 28 medical-specific, general, and proprietary LLMs, every model performs worse on counterfactual questions, with mean accuracy falling from 63.6\% to 45.1\%. Models perform well when an explicit patient attribute directly signals a familiar contraindication, but struggle when patient information must narrow or withdraw a safety warning. Model rationales often acknowledge the changed patient information, yet the final answers retain the previous safety judgment. This vulnerability persists among medical-specific LLMs, whose average CF performance trails that of general LLMs. MedPIC-Bench therefore makes conditional rule application measurable and highlights the limitations of static medication-safety accuracy for assessing patient-specific reliability.

We provide here a dataset for tasks related to natural language understanding and natural language inference. The dataset contains logical puzzles in natural language from three domains: comparing puzzles, knighs and knaves, and zebra puzzles. Each puzzle is associated with the entire set of atomic questions that can be generated based on the relations and individuals occurring in the text. For each question we provide the correct answer: entailment, contradiction or ambiguity. The answer's correctness is verified against theorem provers. Good puzzles have two properties: (i) each piece of information is necessary and (ii) no unnecessary information is provided. These properties make puzzles interesting candidates for machine comprehension tasks.

Clinical notes contain information about patients that goes beyond structured data like lab values and medications. However, clinical notes have been underused relative to structured data, because notes are high-dimensional and sparse. This work develops and evaluates representations of clinical notes using bidirectional transformers (ClinicalBERT). ClinicalBERT uncovers high-quality relationships between medical concepts as judged by humans. ClinicalBert outperforms baselines on 30-day hospital readmission prediction using both discharge summaries and the first few days of notes in the intensive care unit. Code and model parameters are available.

As structured data are often insufficient, labels need to be extracted from free text in electronic health records when developing models for clinical information retrieval and decision support systems. One of the most important contextual properties in clinical text is negation, which indicates the absence of findings. We aimed to improve large scale extraction of labels by comparing three methods for negation detection in Dutch clinical notes. We used the Erasmus Medical Center Dutch Clinical Corpus to compare a rule-based method based on ContextD, a biLSTM model using MedCAT and (finetuned) RoBERTa-based models. We found that both the biLSTM and RoBERTa models consistently outperform the rule-based model in terms of F1 score, precision and recall. In addition, we systematically categorized the classification errors for each model, which can be used to further improve model performance in particular applications. Combining the three models naively was not beneficial in terms of performance. We conclude that the biLSTM and RoBERTa-based models in particular are highly accurate accurate in detecting clinical negations, but that ultimately all three approaches can be viable depending on the use case at hand.

There is enormous enthusiasm and concerns in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, yet current assumptions are all based on general-purpose LLMs such as ChatGPT. This study develops a clinical generative LLM, GatorTronGPT, using 277 billion words of mixed clinical and English text with a GPT-3 architecture of 20 billion parameters. GatorTronGPT improves biomedical natural language processing for medical research. Synthetic NLP models trained using GatorTronGPT generated text outperform NLP models trained using real-world clinical text. Physicians Turing test using 1 (worst) to 9 (best) scale shows that there is no significant difference in linguistic readability (p = 0.22; 6.57 of GatorTronGPT compared with 6.93 of human) and clinical relevance (p = 0.91; 7.0 of GatorTronGPT compared with 6.97 of human) and that physicians cannot differentiate them (p < 0.001). This study provides insights on the opportunities and challenges of LLMs for medical research and healthcare.

Medical benchmarks are indispensable for evaluating the capabilities of language models in healthcare for non-English-speaking communities,therefore help ensuring the quality of real-life applications. However, not every community has sufficient resources and standardized methods to effectively build and design such benchmark, and available non-English medical data is normally fragmented and difficult to verify. We developed an approach to tackle this problem and applied it to create the first Vietnamese medical question benchmark, featuring 14,000 multiple-choice questions across 34 medical specialties. Our benchmark was constructed using various verifiable sources, including carefully curated medical exams and clinical records, and eventually annotated by medical experts. The benchmark includes four difficulty levels, ranging from foundational biological knowledge commonly found in textbooks to typical clinical case studies that require advanced reasoning. This design enables assessment of both the breadth and depth of language models' medical understanding in the target language thanks to its extensive coverage and in-depth subject-specific expertise. We release the benchmark in three parts: a sample public set (4k questions), a full public set (10k questions), and a private set (2k questions) used for leaderboard evaluation. Each set contains all medical subfields and difficulty levels. Our approach is scalable to other languages, and we open-source our data construction pipeline to support the development of future multilingual benchmarks in the medical domain.

Ensuring the accuracy of responses provided by large language models (LLMs) is crucial, particularly in clinical settings where incorrect information may directly impact patient health. To address this challenge, we construct K-QA, a dataset containing 1,212 patient questions originating from real-world conversations held on K Health (an AI-driven clinical platform). We employ a panel of in-house physicians to answer and manually decompose a subset of K-QA into self-contained statements. Additionally, we formulate two NLI-based evaluation metrics approximating recall and precision: (1) comprehensiveness, measuring the percentage of essential clinical information in the generated answer and (2) hallucination rate, measuring the number of statements from the physician-curated response contradicted by the LLM answer. Finally, we use K-QA along with these metrics to evaluate several state-of-the-art models, as well as the effect of in-context learning and medically-oriented augmented retrieval schemes developed by the authors. Our findings indicate that in-context learning improves the comprehensiveness of the models, and augmented retrieval is effective in reducing hallucinations. We make K-QA available to to the community to spur research into medically accurate NLP applications.

Large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) are usually frozen after deployment, so they do not learn from the cases they solve. This is especially concerning in medicine, where new clinical evidence, updated guidelines, and new therapies can change established practice. Fine-tuning can update the model, but it requires access to model weights and additional training. Parameter-free methods avoid training, but they may overfit a fixed validation set, lack reliable domain knowledge, or lose visual details by saving experience only as text. To address these limitations, we present a model-agnostic framework that allows frozen LLMs and VLMs to learn from deployment experience through three forms of external expertise: a Skill that guides reasoning and tool use, a Knowledge Memory that stores reliable facts supported by earlier cases or trusted external evidence, and a Multimodal Knowledge Base that keeps visual examples and guides the model to relate each retrieved case to the current image. Instead of relying on a fixed validation set, a validation strategy keeps an update only if it helps on new cases without degrading performance on earlier ones. Across six benchmarks covering clinical diagnosis, clinical workflows, medical reasoning, and medical and non-medical visual reasoning, and with four open-weight and closed-source base models, our framework improves performance during online deployment by up to 34.2% over the base model on medical tasks, generalizes to unseen cases, transfers to other models without further optimization, and works in non-medical domains.

Large language models achieve strong scores on medical benchmarks, yet these benchmarks evaluate each question in isolation, providing no measure of whether a system can distinguish clinically similar presentations requiring different interventions. We introduce MamaBench, the first counterfactual benchmark for maternal and paediatric AI: 434 expert-authored clinical narratives in 217 pairs across 371 pathologies, evaluated via the Bias Trap Rate (BTR), the conditional probability that a model fails the counterfactual given success on the base case. We propose Evidence-Anchored RAG (EA-RAG), a three-stage retrieval method that replaces aggregate similarity with an evidence coverage objective through clinical parameter extraction, coverage auditing, and contrastive sub-queries. Across eight configurations of four frontier LLMs, base accuracy overstates robust accuracy by 16-28 percentage points in every model. EA-RAG achieves 20.3% BTR and 65.0% robust accuracy on Claude Sonnet 4.6, a 5.5 percentage point BTR reduction without degrading base accuracy. The residual 20% BTR confirms that counterfactual robustness in clinical AI remains an open challenge. Keywords: counterfactual evaluation, clinical AI, maternal healthcare, retrieval-augmented generation, diagnostic robustness

Recruiting patients to participate in clinical trials can be challenging and time-consuming. Usually, participation in a clinical trial is initiated by a healthcare professional and proposed to the patient. Promoting clinical trials directly to patients via online recruitment might help to reach them more efficiently. In this study, we address the case where a patient is initiating their own recruitment process and wants to determine whether they are eligible for a given clinical trial, using their own language to describe their medical profile. To study whether this creates difficulties in the patient trial matching process, we design a new dataset and task, Natural Language Inference for Patient Recruitment (NLI4PR), in which patient language profiles must be matched to clinical trials. We create it by adapting the TREC 2022 Clinical Trial Track dataset, which provides patients' medical profiles, and rephrasing them manually using patient language. We also use the associated clinical trial reports where the patients are either eligible or excluded. We prompt several open-source Large Language Models on our task and achieve from 56.5 to 71.8 of F1 score using patient language, against 64.7 to 73.1 for the same task using medical language. When using patient language, we observe only a small loss in performance for the best model, suggesting that having the patient as a starting point could be adopted to help recruit patients for clinical trials. The corpus and code bases are all freely available on our Github and HuggingFace repositories.

Current Large Language Models (LLMs) benchmarks are often based on open-ended or close-ended QA evaluations, avoiding the requirement of human labor. Close-ended measurements evaluate the factuality of responses but lack expressiveness. Open-ended capture the model's capacity to produce discourse responses but are harder to assess for correctness. These two approaches are commonly used, either independently or together, though their relationship remains poorly understood. This work is focused on the healthcare domain, where both factuality and discourse matter greatly. It introduces a comprehensive, multi-axis suite for healthcare LLM evaluation, exploring correlations between open and close benchmarks and metrics. Findings include blind spots and overlaps in current methodologies. As an updated sanity check, we release a new medical benchmark--CareQA--, with both open and closed variants. Finally, we propose a novel metric for open-ended evaluations --Relaxed Perplexity-- to mitigate the identified limitations.

This paper introduces a new testbed CLIFT (Clinical Shift) for the clinical domain Question-answering task. The testbed includes 7.5k high-quality question answering samples to provide a diverse and reliable benchmark. We performed a comprehensive experimental study and evaluated several QA deep-learning models under the proposed testbed. Despite impressive results on the original test set, the performance degrades when applied to new test sets, which shows the distribution shift. Our findings emphasize the need for and the potential for increasing the robustness of clinical domain models under distributional shifts. The testbed offers one way to track progress in that direction. It also highlights the necessity of adopting evaluation metrics that consider robustness to natural distribution shifts. We plan to expand the corpus by adding more samples and model results. The full paper and the updated benchmark are available at github.com/openlifescience-ai/clift

Throughout the course of my Ph.D., I have been designing the user experience (UX) of various machine learning (ML) systems. In this workshop, I share two projects as case studies in which people engage with ML in much more complicated and nuanced ways than the technical HCML work might assume. The first case study describes how cardiology teams in three hospitals used a clinical decision-support system that helps them decide whether and when to implant an artificial heart to a heart failure patient. I demonstrate that physicians cannot draw on their decision-making experience by seeing only patient data on paper. They are also confused by some fundamental premises upon which ML operates. For example, physicians asked: Are ML predictions made based on clinicians' best efforts? Is it ethical to make decisions based on previous patients' collective outcomes? In the second case study, my collaborators and I designed an intelligent text editor, with the goal of improving authors' writing experience with NLP (Natural Language Processing) technologies. We prototyped a number of generative functionalities where the system provides phrase-or-sentence-level writing suggestions upon user request. When writing with the prototype, however, authors shared that they need to "see where the sentence is going two paragraphs later" in order to decide whether the suggestion aligns with their writing; Some even considered adopting machine suggestions as plagiarism, therefore "is simply wrong". By sharing these unexpected and intriguing responses from these real-world ML users, I hope to start a discussion about such previously-unknown complexities and nuances of -- as the workshop proposal states -- "putting ML at the service of people in a way that is accessible, useful, and trustworthy to all".

Skin carcinoma is the most prevalent form of cancer globally, accounting for over $8 billion in annual healthcare expenditures. In clinical settings, physicians document patient visits using detailed SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) notes. However, manually generating these notes is labor-intensive and contributes to clinician burnout. In this work, we propose a weakly supervised multimodal framework to generate clinically structured SOAP notes from limited inputs, including lesion images and sparse clinical text. Our approach reduces reliance on manual annotations, enabling scalable, clinically grounded documentation while alleviating clinician burden and reducing the need for large annotated data. Our method achieves performance comparable to GPT-4o, Claude, and DeepSeek Janus Pro across key clinical relevance metrics. To evaluate clinical quality, we introduce two novel metrics MedConceptEval and Clinical Coherence Score (CCS) which assess semantic alignment with expert medical concepts and input features, respectively.

Medical large language models (LLMs) research often makes bold claims, from encoding clinical knowledge to reasoning like a physician. These claims are usually backed by evaluation on competitive benchmarks; a tradition inherited from mainstream machine learning. But how do we separate real progress from a leaderboard flex? Medical LLM benchmarks, much like those in other fields, are arbitrarily constructed using medical licensing exam questions. For these benchmarks to truly measure progress, they must accurately capture the real-world tasks they aim to represent. In this position paper, we argue that medical LLM benchmarks should (and indeed can) be empirically evaluated for their construct validity. In the psychological testing literature, "construct validity" refers to the ability of a test to measure an underlying "construct", that is the actual conceptual target of evaluation. By drawing an analogy between LLM benchmarks and psychological tests, we explain how frameworks from this field can provide empirical foundations for validating benchmarks. To put these ideas into practice, we use real-world clinical data in proof-of-concept experiments to evaluate popular medical LLM benchmarks and report significant gaps in their construct validity. Finally, we outline a vision for a new ecosystem of medical LLM evaluation centered around the creation of valid benchmarks.

Background and Objective: Clinicians expect recurrence risk to climb with cancer severity. In a UK multicentre trial, an unconstrained XGBoost model learnt that higher tumour stage and carcinoma in situ predicted lower recurrence risk, and discrimination, calibration, and SHAP were all blind to it. We developed a counterfactual testing framework to detect this inversion and a monotonic-constraint framework to remove it without hurting performance. Methods: BOXIT enrolled 472 patients with protocol-mandated cystoscopy across 51 UK sites (2007-2012); 435 had at least two years' follow-up (153 recurrences, 35.2%). We developed a counterfactual direction test and a monotonic-constraint correction, with constraint directions drawn from the EORTC and EAU risk systems, and evaluated both against unconstrained XGBoost and logistic regression on 18 predictors (seven directed) over 50 cross-validation folds. The test worsened each patient on one directed feature at a time to check whether risk fell; SHAP direction and calibration were also assessed. Key Findings and Limitations: Tumour stage and carcinoma in situ were associated with lower recurrence, opposite to medical intuition; the unconstrained model reversed carcinoma in situ counterfactuals in 90.2% of cases and stage in 74.3%. Discrimination (ΔAUC 0.005, p=0.47), calibration, and SHAP magnitude were all blind to the inversion. Monotonic constraints eliminated every violation at no cost to discrimination (0.723 vs 0.718) and outperformed EORTC (p=8.9e-16). Limitations: single trial, internal-external validation only. Conclusions and Clinical Implications: A model that had learned this inversion passed every conventional check. A counterfactual direction test, run as a single refit with pre-specified monotonic constraints, catches this failure at no cost to performance and should be routine before clinical deployment.

Current medical language models, adapted from large language models (LLMs), typically predict ICD code-based diagnosis from electronic health records (EHRs) because these labels are readily available. However, ICD codes do not capture the nuanced, context-rich reasoning clinicians use for diagnosis. Clinicians synthesize diverse patient data and reference clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to make evidence-based decisions. This misalignment limits the clinical utility of existing models. We introduce GARMLE-G, a Generation-Augmented Retrieval framework that grounds medical language model outputs in authoritative CPGs. Unlike conventional Retrieval-Augmented Generation based approaches, GARMLE-G enables hallucination-free outputs by directly retrieving authoritative guideline content without relying on model-generated text. It (1) integrates LLM predictions with EHR data to create semantically rich queries, (2) retrieves relevant CPG knowledge snippets via embedding similarity, and (3) fuses guideline content with model output to generate clinically aligned recommendations. A prototype system for hypertension diagnosis was developed and evaluated on multiple metrics, demonstrating superior retrieval precision, semantic relevance, and clinical guideline adherence compared to RAG-based baselines, while maintaining a lightweight architecture suitable for localized healthcare deployment. This work provides a scalable, low-cost, and hallucination-free method for grounding medical language models in evidence-based clinical practice, with strong potential for broader clinical deployment.

Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which can overestimate real clinical ability due to guessing strategies and answer biases. To address these limitations, we introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications that reduce MCQA-specific artifacts and better test reasoning. We evaluate 21 LLMs and show that evaluation design strongly affects results. Under our harder setup, the best model (Qwen3.5-122B) drops by 28.4 and 31 pp on English and Polish exams, respectively. Despite low evidence of data contamination, standard MCQA scores do not reliably reflect true medical competence. To facilitate further research, we make our benchmark publicly available.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to support ambient documentation and clinical reasoning. Here we examine the impact of a failure mode shared between these two applications by assessing their sensitivity to information incidental to the patient encounter. In 576 patient-clinician dialogues, we found that frontier models inserted small-talk exchanges into 35% of notes, while mean quality scores changed by at most 0.20 points on five-point scales. In 3.7% of frontier notes, models misattributed the asides or used them clinically. In 57 mock recorded consultations, background speech from a separate patient encounter at -10 dB leaked into 48.2% of transcripts, with contamination detected in 5.3% of downstream notes generated by four open-weight models. We propose a dual encoding hypothesis of clinical reasoning and distraction in LLMs, with preliminary evidence that LLM components associated with disruption by incidental information also support clinical reasoning. These findings support evaluating resistance to incidental information before clinical use, with safeguards that prevent contamination while preserving clinical reasoning.

Large language models (LLMs) have exhibited remarkable capabilities across various domains and tasks, pushing the boundaries of our knowledge in learning and cognition. The latest model, OpenAI's o1, stands out as the first LLM with an internalized chain-of-thought technique using reinforcement learning strategies. While it has demonstrated surprisingly strong capabilities on various general language tasks, its performance in specialized fields such as medicine remains unknown. To this end, this report provides a comprehensive exploration of o1 on different medical scenarios, examining 3 key aspects: understanding, reasoning, and multilinguality. Specifically, our evaluation encompasses 6 tasks using data from 37 medical datasets, including two newly constructed and more challenging question-answering (QA) tasks based on professional medical quizzes from the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and The Lancet. These datasets offer greater clinical relevance compared to standard medical QA benchmarks such as MedQA, translating more effectively into real-world clinical utility. Our analysis of o1 suggests that the enhanced reasoning ability of LLMs may (significantly) benefit their capability to understand various medical instructions and reason through complex clinical scenarios. Notably, o1 surpasses the previous GPT-4 in accuracy by an average of 6.2% and 6.6% across 19 datasets and two newly created complex QA scenarios. But meanwhile, we identify several weaknesses in both the model capability and the existing evaluation protocols, including hallucination, inconsistent multilingual ability, and discrepant metrics for evaluation. We release our raw data and model outputs at https://ucsc-vlaa.github.io/o1_medicine/ for future research.

In recent years, there is strong emphasis on mining medical data using machine learning techniques. A common problem is to obtain a noiseless set of textual documents, with a relevant content for the research question, and developing a Question Answering (QA) model for a specific medical field. The purpose of this paper is to present a new methodology for building a medical dataset and obtain a QA model for analysis of symptoms and impact on daily life for a specific disease domain. The ``Mental Health'' forum was used, a forum dedicated to people suffering from schizophrenia and different mental disorders. Relevant posts of active users, who regularly participate, were extrapolated providing a new method of obtaining low-bias content and without privacy issues. Furthermore, it is shown how to pre-process the dataset to convert it into a QA dataset. The Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT), DistilBERT, RoBERTa, and BioBERT models were fine-tuned and evaluated via F1-Score, Exact Match, Precision and Recall. Accurate empirical experiments demonstrated the effectiveness of the proposed method for obtaining an accurate dataset for QA model implementation. By fine-tuning the BioBERT QA model, we achieved an F1 score of 0.885, showing a considerable improvement and outperforming the state-of-the-art model for mental disorders domain.

This technical report introduces a Named Clinical Entity Recognition Benchmark for evaluating language models in healthcare, addressing the crucial natural language processing (NLP) task of extracting structured information from clinical narratives to support applications like automated coding, clinical trial cohort identification, and clinical decision support. The leaderboard provides a standardized platform for assessing diverse language models, including encoder and decoder architectures, on their ability to identify and classify clinical entities across multiple medical domains. A curated collection of openly available clinical datasets is utilized, encompassing entities such as diseases, symptoms, medications, procedures, and laboratory measurements. Importantly, these entities are standardized according to the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model, ensuring consistency and interoperability across different healthcare systems and datasets, and a comprehensive evaluation of model performance. Performance of models is primarily assessed using the F1-score, and it is complemented by various assessment modes to provide comprehensive insights into model performance. The report also includes a brief analysis of models evaluated to date, highlighting observed trends and limitations. By establishing this benchmarking framework, the leaderboard aims to promote transparency, facilitate comparative analyses, and drive innovation in clinical entity recognition tasks, addressing the need for robust evaluation methods in healthcare NLP.

Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated remarkable capabilities in natural language understanding and generation across various domains, including medicine. We present a comprehensive evaluation of GPT-4, a state-of-the-art LLM, on medical competency examinations and benchmark datasets. GPT-4 is a general-purpose model that is not specialized for medical problems through training or engineered to solve clinical tasks. Our analysis covers two sets of official practice materials for the USMLE, a three-step examination program used to assess clinical competency and grant licensure in the United States. We also evaluate performance on the MultiMedQA suite of benchmark datasets. Beyond measuring model performance, experiments were conducted to investigate the influence of test questions containing both text and images on model performance, probe for memorization of content during training, and study probability calibration, which is of critical importance in high-stakes applications like medicine. Our results show that GPT-4, without any specialized prompt crafting, exceeds the passing score on USMLE by over 20 points and outperforms earlier general-purpose models (GPT-3.5) as well as models specifically fine-tuned on medical knowledge (Med-PaLM, a prompt-tuned version of Flan-PaLM 540B). In addition, GPT-4 is significantly better calibrated than GPT-3.5, demonstrating a much-improved ability to predict the likelihood that its answers are correct. We also explore the behavior of the model qualitatively through a case study that shows the ability of GPT-4 to explain medical reasoning, personalize explanations to students, and interactively craft new counterfactual scenarios around a medical case. Implications of the findings are discussed for potential uses of GPT-4 in medical education, assessment, and clinical practice, with appropriate attention to challenges of accuracy and safety.

The adoption of large language models (LLMs) to assist clinicians has attracted remarkable attention. Existing works mainly adopt the close-ended question-answering (QA) task with answer options for evaluation. However, many clinical decisions involve answering open-ended questions without pre-set options. To better understand LLMs in the clinic, we construct a benchmark ClinicBench. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. Furthermore, we construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice, e.g., open-ended decision-making, long document processing, and emerging drug analysis. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings. Finally, we invite medical experts to evaluate the clinical usefulness of LLMs. The benchmark data is available at https://github.com/AI-in-Health/ClinicBench.

Skin carcinoma is the most prevalent form of cancer globally, accounting for over $8 billion in annual healthcare expenditures. Early diagnosis, accurate and timely treatment are critical to improving patient survival rates. In clinical settings, physicians document patient visits using detailed SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) notes. However, manually generating these notes is labor-intensive and contributes to clinician burnout. In this work, we propose skin-SOAP, a weakly supervised multimodal framework to generate clinically structured SOAP notes from limited inputs, including lesion images and sparse clinical text. Our approach reduces reliance on manual annotations, enabling scalable, clinically grounded documentation while alleviating clinician burden and reducing the need for large annotated data. Our method achieves performance comparable to GPT-4o, Claude, and DeepSeek Janus Pro across key clinical relevance metrics. To evaluate this clinical relevance, we introduce two novel metrics MedConceptEval and Clinical Coherence Score (CCS) which assess semantic alignment with expert medical concepts and input features, respectively.

The objective of this paper is to understand what characteristics and features of clinical data influence physician's decision about ordering laboratory tests or prescribing medications the most. We conduct our analysis on data and decisions extracted from electronic health records of 4486 post-surgical cardiac patients. The summary statistics for 335 different lab order decisions and 407 medication decisions are reported. We show that in many cases, physician's lab-order and medication decisions can be well predicted from a small subset of all features.

Vision-language models (VLMs) adapted to the medical domain have shown strong performance on visual question answering benchmarks, yet their robustness against two critical failure modes, hallucination and sycophancy, remains poorly understood, particularly in combination. We evaluate six VLMs (three general-purpose, three medical-specialist) on three medical VQA datasets and uncover a grounding-sycophancy tradeoff: models with the lowest hallucination propensity are the most sycophantic, while the most pressure-resistant model hallucinates more than all medical-specialist models. To characterize this tradeoff, we propose three metrics: L-VASE, a logit-space reformulation of VASE that avoids its double-normalization; CCS, a confidence-calibrated sycophancy score that penalizes high-confidence capitulation; and Clinical Safety Index (CSI), a unified safety index that combines grounding, autonomy, and calibration via a geometric mean. Across 1,151 test cases, no model achieves a CSI above 0.35, indicating that none of the evaluated 7-8B parameter VLMs is simultaneously well-grounded and robust to social pressure. Our findings suggest that joint evaluation of both properties is necessary before these models can be considered for clinical use. Code is available at https://github.com/UTSA-VIRLab/AgreeOrRight

Motion artefacts in magnetic resonance brain images can have a strong impact on diagnostic confidence. The assessment of MR image quality is fundamental before proceeding with the clinical diagnosis. Motion artefacts can alter the delineation of structures such as the brain, lesions or tumours and may require a repeat scan. Otherwise, an inaccurate (e.g. correct pathology but wrong severity) or incorrect diagnosis (e.g. wrong pathology) may occur. "Image quality assessment" as a fast, automated step right after scanning can assist in deciding if the acquired images are diagnostically sufficient. An automated image quality assessment based on the structural similarity index (SSIM) regression through a residual neural network is proposed in this work. Additionally, a classification into different groups - by subdividing with SSIM ranges - is evaluated. Importantly, this method predicts SSIM values of an input image in the absence of a reference ground truth image. The networks were able to detect motion artefacts, and the best performance for the regression and classification task has always been achieved with ResNet-18 with contrast augmentation. The mean and standard deviation of residuals' distribution were mu=-0.0009 and sigma=0.0139, respectively. Whilst for the classification task in 3, 5 and 10 classes, the best accuracies were 97, 95 and 89\%, respectively. The results show that the proposed method could be a tool for supporting neuro-radiologists and radiographers in evaluating image quality quickly.

Clinical question answering systems have the potential to provide clinicians with relevant and timely answers to their questions. Nonetheless, despite the advances that have been made, adoption of these systems in clinical settings has been slow. One issue is a lack of question-answering datasets which reflect the real-world needs of health professionals. In this work, we present RealMedQA, a dataset of realistic clinical questions generated by humans and an LLM. We describe the process for generating and verifying the QA pairs and assess several QA models on BioASQ and RealMedQA to assess the relative difficulty of matching answers to questions. We show that the LLM is more cost-efficient for generating "ideal" QA pairs. Additionally, we achieve a lower lexical similarity between questions and answers than BioASQ which provides an additional challenge to the top two QA models, as per the results. We release our code and our dataset publicly to encourage further research.

The use of deep neural models for diagnosis prediction from clinical text has shown promising results. However, in clinical practice such models must not only be accurate, but provide doctors with interpretable and helpful results. We introduce ProtoPatient, a novel method based on prototypical networks and label-wise attention with both of these abilities. ProtoPatient makes predictions based on parts of the text that are similar to prototypical patients - providing justifications that doctors understand. We evaluate the model on two publicly available clinical datasets and show that it outperforms existing baselines. Quantitative and qualitative evaluations with medical doctors further demonstrate that the model provides valuable explanations for clinical decision support.

Machine learning models are often personalized with categorical attributes that are protected, sensitive, self-reported, or costly to acquire. In this work, we show models that are personalized with group attributes can reduce performance at a group level. We propose formal conditions to ensure the "fair use" of group attributes in prediction tasks by training one additional model -- i.e., collective preference guarantees to ensure that each group who provides personal data will receive a tailored gain in performance in return. We present sufficient conditions to ensure fair use in empirical risk minimization and characterize failure modes that lead to fair use violations due to standard practices in model development and deployment. We present a comprehensive empirical study of fair use in clinical prediction tasks. Our results demonstrate the prevalence of fair use violations in practice and illustrate simple interventions to mitigate their harm.

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

Plain language summarization with LLMs can be useful for improving textual accessibility of technical content. But how factual are these summaries in a high-stakes domain like medicine? This paper presents FactPICO, a factuality benchmark for plain language summarization of medical texts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are the basis of evidence-based medicine and can directly inform patient treatment. FactPICO consists of 345 plain language summaries of RCT abstracts generated from three LLMs (i.e., GPT-4, Llama-2, and Alpaca), with fine-grained evaluation and natural language rationales from experts. We assess the factuality of critical elements of RCTs in those summaries: Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO), as well as the reported findings concerning these. We also evaluate the correctness of the extra information (e.g., explanations) added by LLMs. Using FactPICO, we benchmark a range of existing factuality metrics, including the newly devised ones based on LLMs. We find that plain language summarization of medical evidence is still challenging, especially when balancing between simplicity and factuality, and that existing metrics correlate poorly with expert judgments on the instance level.

The proliferation of Large Language Models (LLMs) in medicine has enabled impressive capabilities, yet a critical gap remains in their ability to perform systematic, transparent, and verifiable reasoning, a cornerstone of clinical practice. This has catalyzed a shift from single-step answer generation to the development of LLMs explicitly designed for medical reasoning. This paper provides the first systematic review of this emerging field. We propose a taxonomy of reasoning enhancement techniques, categorized into training-time strategies (e.g., supervised fine-tuning, reinforcement learning) and test-time mechanisms (e.g., prompt engineering, multi-agent systems). We analyze how these techniques are applied across different data modalities (text, image, code) and in key clinical applications such as diagnosis, education, and treatment planning. Furthermore, we survey the evolution of evaluation benchmarks from simple accuracy metrics to sophisticated assessments of reasoning quality and visual interpretability. Based on an analysis of 60 seminal studies from 2022-2025, we conclude by identifying critical challenges, including the faithfulness-plausibility gap and the need for native multimodal reasoning, and outlining future directions toward building efficient, robust, and sociotechnically responsible medical AI.

Medical coding translates clinical documentation into standardized codes for billing, research, and public health, but manual coding is time-consuming and error-prone. Existing automation efforts rely on small datasets that poorly represent real-world patient heterogeneity. We trained a language model on 5.8 million electronic health records from 1.8 million patients across nearly all specialties in Eastern Denmark (2006--2016) to predict ICD-10 codes from clinical notes, medications, and laboratory results. Evaluated on 270,000 held-out patients, the model achieved a micro F1 of 71.8% and a top-10 recall of 95.5%. Performance varied by specialty (F1: 53--91%), with higher scores in specialties with well-defined diagnostic criteria. Codes appearing predominantly as secondary diagnoses had markedly lower F1 scores. For three such codes (suicide-related behaviors, weight disorders, and hypertension), the model identified thousands of uncoded cases, of which 76-86% were confirmed valid upon manual review, suggesting systematic under-coding rather than model error. These findings suggest under-coding of secondary diagnoses in Eastern Denmark during this period, with potential implications for epidemiological research, public health surveillance, and understanding of multimorbidity. Similar time constraints and reimbursement structures in other healthcare systems suggest this may not be isolated to this dataset. The model can automate coding for approximately 50% of cases and provide accurate suggestions for most others, and may offer a practical solution to help capture missed secondary conditions.

Clinical diagnosis prediction models, when provided with a patient's medical history, aim to detect potential diseases early, facilitating timely intervention and improving prognostic outcomes. However, the inherent scarcity of patient data and large disease candidate space often pose challenges in developing satisfactory models for this intricate task. The exploration of leveraging Large Language Models (LLMs) for encapsulating clinical decision processes has been limited. We introduce MERA, a clinical diagnosis prediction model that bridges pertaining natural language knowledge with medical practice. We apply hierarchical contrastive learning on a disease candidate ranking list to alleviate the large decision space issue. With concept memorization through fine-tuning, we bridge the natural language clinical knowledge with medical codes. Experimental results on MIMIC-III and IV datasets show that MERA achieves the state-of-the-art diagnosis prediction performance and dramatically elevates the diagnosis prediction capabilities of generative LMs.

The MEDIQA-CORR 2024 shared task aims to assess the ability of Large Language Models (LLMs) to identify and correct medical errors in clinical notes. In this study, we evaluate the capability of general LLMs, specifically GPT-3.5 and GPT-4, to identify and correct medical errors with multiple prompting strategies. Recognising the limitation of LLMs in generating accurate corrections only via prompting strategies, we propose incorporating error-span predictions from a smaller, fine-tuned model in two ways: 1) by presenting it as a hint in the prompt and 2) by framing it as multiple-choice questions from which the LLM can choose the best correction. We found that our proposed prompting strategies significantly improve the LLM's ability to generate corrections. Our best-performing solution with 8-shot + CoT + hints ranked sixth in the shared task leaderboard. Additionally, our comprehensive analyses show the impact of the location of the error sentence, the prompted role, and the position of the multiple-choice option on the accuracy of the LLM. This prompts further questions about the readiness of LLM to be implemented in real-world clinical settings.

Despite growing interest in using large language models (LLMs) in healthcare, current explorations do not assess the real-world utility and safety of LLMs in clinical settings. Our objective was to determine whether two LLMs can serve information needs submitted by physicians as questions to an informatics consultation service in a safe and concordant manner. Sixty six questions from an informatics consult service were submitted to GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 via simple prompts. 12 physicians assessed the LLM responses' possibility of patient harm and concordance with existing reports from an informatics consultation service. Physician assessments were summarized based on majority vote. For no questions did a majority of physicians deem either LLM response as harmful. For GPT-3.5, responses to 8 questions were concordant with the informatics consult report, 20 discordant, and 9 were unable to be assessed. There were 29 responses with no majority on "Agree", "Disagree", and "Unable to assess". For GPT-4, responses to 13 questions were concordant, 15 discordant, and 3 were unable to be assessed. There were 35 responses with no majority. Responses from both LLMs were largely devoid of overt harm, but less than 20% of the responses agreed with an answer from an informatics consultation service, responses contained hallucinated references, and physicians were divided on what constitutes harm. These results suggest that while general purpose LLMs are able to provide safe and credible responses, they often do not meet the specific information need of a given question. A definitive evaluation of the usefulness of LLMs in healthcare settings will likely require additional research on prompt engineering, calibration, and custom-tailoring of general purpose models.

Integrating large language models (LLMs) like DeepSeek R1 into healthcare requires rigorous evaluation of their reasoning alignment with clinical expertise. This study assesses DeepSeek R1's medical reasoning against expert patterns using 100 MedQA clinical cases. The model achieved 93% diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating systematic clinical judgment through differential diagnosis, guideline-based treatment selection, and integration of patient-specific factors. However, error analysis of seven incorrect cases revealed persistent limitations: anchoring bias, challenges reconciling conflicting data, insufficient exploration of alternatives, overthinking, knowledge gaps, and premature prioritization of definitive treatment over intermediate care. Crucially, reasoning length correlated with accuracy - shorter responses (<5,000 characters) were more reliable, suggesting extended explanations may signal uncertainty or rationalization of errors. While DeepSeek R1 exhibits foundational clinical reasoning capabilities, recurring flaws highlight critical areas for refinement, including bias mitigation, knowledge updates, and structured reasoning frameworks. These findings underscore LLMs' potential to augment medical decision-making through artificial reasoning but emphasize the need for domain-specific validation, interpretability safeguards, and confidence metrics (e.g., response length thresholds) to ensure reliability in real-world applications.

Seeking health-related advice on the internet has become a common practice in the digital era. Determining the trustworthiness of medical claims found online and finding appropriate evidence for this information is increasingly challenging. Fact-checking has emerged as an approach to assess the veracity of factual claims using evidence from credible knowledge sources. To help advance the automation of this task, in this paper, we introduce a novel dataset of 750 health-related claims, labeled for veracity by medical experts and backed with evidence from appropriate clinical studies. We provide an analysis of the dataset, highlighting its characteristics and challenges. The dataset can be used for Machine Learning tasks related to automated fact-checking such as evidence retrieval, veracity prediction, and explanation generation. For this purpose, we provide baseline models based on different approaches, examine their performance, and discuss the findings.

Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS) relies on official clinical guidelines that define diagnostic criteria, treatments, dosages, and monitoring procedures for over 200 million citizens. Yet current LLMs perform poorly on this guideline-specific knowledge, and no benchmark evaluates clinical recall grounded in Brazilian Portuguese protocols. We address this gap by adapting Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct to the Brazilian clinical domain. From 178 official guidelines (~5.4M tokens), we generate ~70M tokens of synthetic data in three formats -- rephrases, wiki-style articles, and question-answer pairs -- using four generator LLMs. We then apply continual pre-training followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We introduce HealthBench-BR, with 1,780 balanced true/false clinical assertions, and PCDT-QA, with 890 open-ended clinical questions scored by an LLM judge. Our best model achieves 83.9% on HealthBench-BR and 85.4% on PCDT-QA, outperforming GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Google AI Overview's web-grounded RAG despite having only 14B parameters. Ablations show that generator diversity and reinforcement learning are critical to these gains. We release all datasets, benchmarks, and model weights to support reproducible clinical NLP research for Brazilian Portuguese. Code, data, and model weights are available at https://github.com/hugoabonizio/clinical-protocols-br

We test whether Large Language Models (LLMs) can be used to simulate human participants in social-science studies. To do this, we run replications of 14 studies from the Many Labs 2 replication project with OpenAI's text-davinci-003 model, colloquially known as GPT3.5. Based on our pre-registered analyses, we find that among the eight studies we could analyse, our GPT sample replicated 37.5% of the original results and 37.5% of the Many Labs 2 results. However, we were unable to analyse the remaining six studies due to an unexpected phenomenon we call the "correct answer" effect. Different runs of GPT3.5 answered nuanced questions probing political orientation, economic preference, judgement, and moral philosophy with zero or near-zero variation in responses: with the supposedly "correct answer." In one exploratory follow-up study, we found that a "correct answer" was robust to changing the demographic details that precede the prompt. In another, we found that most but not all "correct answers" were robust to changing the order of answer choices. One of our most striking findings occurred in our replication of the Moral Foundations Theory survey results, where we found GPT3.5 identifying as a political conservative in 99.6% of the cases, and as a liberal in 99.3% of the cases in the reverse-order condition. However, both self-reported 'GPT conservatives' and 'GPT liberals' showed right-leaning moral foundations. Our results cast doubts on the validity of using LLMs as a general replacement for human participants in the social sciences. Our results also raise concerns that a hypothetical AI-led future may be subject to a diminished diversity-of-thought.

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have attained human-level accuracy on medical question-answer (QA) benchmarks. However, their limitations in navigating open-ended clinical scenarios have recently been shown, raising concerns about the robustness and generalizability of LLM reasoning across diverse, real-world medical tasks. To probe potential LLM failure modes in clinical problem-solving, we present the medical abstraction and reasoning corpus (M-ARC). M-ARC assesses clinical reasoning through scenarios designed to exploit the Einstellung effect -- the fixation of thought arising from prior experience, targeting LLM inductive biases toward inflexible pattern matching from their training data rather than engaging in flexible reasoning. We find that LLMs, including current state-of-the-art o1 and Gemini models, perform poorly compared to physicians on M-ARC, often demonstrating lack of commonsense medical reasoning and a propensity to hallucinate. In addition, uncertainty estimation analyses indicate that LLMs exhibit overconfidence in their answers, despite their limited accuracy. The failure modes revealed by M-ARC in LLM medical reasoning underscore the need to exercise caution when deploying these models in clinical settings.

Specialized clinical AI assistants are rapidly entering medical practice, often framed as safer or more reliable than general-purpose large language models (LLMs). Yet, unlike frontier models, these clinical tools are rarely subjected to independent, quantitative evaluation, creating a critical evidence gap despite their growing influence on diagnosis, triage, and guideline interpretation. We assessed two widely deployed clinical AI systems (OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI) against three state-of-the-art generalist LLMs (GPT-5, Gemini 3 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5) using a 1,000-item mini-benchmark combining MedQA (medical knowledge) and HealthBench (clinician-alignment) tasks. Generalist models consistently outperformed clinical tools, with GPT-5 achieving the highest scores, while OpenEvidence and UpToDate demonstrated deficits in completeness, communication quality, context awareness, and systems-based safety reasoning. These findings reveal that tools marketed for clinical decision support may often lag behind frontier LLMs, underscoring the urgent need for transparent, independent evaluation before deployment in patient-facing workflows.