The paper surveys open, non‑proprietary large language models (LLMs) and AI foundation models (AIFMs) for clinical use, presenting a taxonomy of current state‑of‑the‑art models. It empirically tests open‑weight LLMs on a personalized‑prescription task, finding that they match or surpass a proprietary baseline in overall suitability accuracy, especially when combined with Retrieval‑Augmented Generation (RAG). A subjective evaluation by blinded raters shows mixed effects of RAG on perceived suitability across multiple dimensions, and the authors discuss ethical risks and the need for responsible deployment.
arXiv:2607. 20453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models show promise for clinical prediction, but zero-shot performance on specialized tasks is limited by incomplete domain knowledge, especially for smaller locally deployable models.
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
arXiv:2606. 03198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical AI evaluation increasingly delegates scoring to large language models (LLMs) acting as AI raters, yet their scoring behavior across evaluation conditions has not been quantitatively characterized.
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2609. 22154v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Tabular data is the most common format in clinical practice, encompassing laboratory results, medication records, diagnostic codes, and patient demographics.
arXiv:2609.14819v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have a growing range of applications in medicine, and their evaluation is critical for ensuring they provide benefit and...
The paper introduces PrecepTron, a 32‑billion‑parameter language model fine‑tuned with low‑rank adaptation to evaluate clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) at a physician level. It also releases GRAND‑ROUNDS, a benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. Using PrecepTron, the authors replicate key findings from major medical AI studies and explore new questions about LLM diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating that fine‑tuned models can provide consistent, scalable physician‑level scoring.
MindEval2 is a new evaluation framework for AI chatbots in mental health support, comprising Mental Health Quality Rubrics (MHQR) and the MindSim patient simulation harness. MHQR, developed with PhD-level psychologists, provides explicit, actionable criteria for assessing response quality, while MindSim offers realistic, longitudinal patient interactions with a memory component. The study evaluated 18 models, finding that although surface-level quality has improved, guidance calibration remains the main failure across all models.
arXiv:2508. 14817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Objective: To evaluate whether retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can serve as an efficient alternative to long-context prompting for clinical reasoning over electronic health records (EHRs).
The paper introduces a retrieval‑augmented multi‑agent framework that automatically generates instance‑specific evaluation rubrics for medical language models. By retrieving authoritative medical evidence, decomposing it into atomic facts, and combining these with user interaction constraints, the system produces fine‑grained criteria that outperform GPT‑4o on HealthBench and LLMEval‑Med. The generated rubrics also guide response refinement, improving medical LLM output quality by 9.2%.
arXiv:2608. 12138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have recently been reported to match or exceed specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks, but such comparisons draw on a narrow set of systems and on benchmarks developed largely in high-income settings.
The study evaluates counterfactual bias in ten open‑source large language models (LLMs) for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. By creating paired clinical vignettes that differ only in demographic or socioeconomic variables, the authors measure shifts in acuity assignment, finding that counterfactual sensitivity varies widely across model families and sizes. A fine‑tuned Qwen2.5‑7B model exhibited the lowest sensitivity, while larger or medical‑domain models sometimes showed greater shifts, highlighting the need for fairness assessment before clinical deployment.