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:2512. 01241v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2607. 25485v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf.
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:2603. 14158v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical workflows, yet evaluations rarely assess how clinician reasoning shapes model behavior during clinical interactions.
arXiv:2607. 08038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning.
arXiv:2606. 00027v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions common in clinical practice.
arXiv:2603. 25821v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We present Doctorina MedBench, an evaluation framework for agent-based medical AI based on the simulation of physician-patient interactions.
AI Morbidity and Mortality (AI M&M) is a structured, blameless framework designed to review clinical AI failures. It combines standardized case intake, evidence preservation, investigator reconstruction, tool‑in‑loop attribution, and corrective‑action tracking, classifying each event across four linked dimensions: Trigger, Mechanism, Clinical Pathway, and Corrective Action. The authors demonstrate the framework with five outpatient medication and clinical decision‑support cases, achieving full agreement among reviewers on all classification axes.
The paper introduces MACD, a Multi-Agent Clinical Diagnosis framework that enables large language models to self‑learn clinical knowledge through a multi‑agent pipeline of summarization, refinement, and application. MACD is extended into a human‑AI collaborative workflow where multiple diagnostician agents consult iteratively, guided by a judge agent and human oversight. Evaluation on the MIMIC‑MACD cohort shows significant gains in diagnostic accuracy—an average 11.6 percentage‑point improvement over authoritative knowledge for open‑weight LLMs and an 18.3‑percentage‑point boost over physician‑only diagnosis in text‑only vignettes.
arXiv:2601. 16529v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) deployed in clinical decision support may acquiesce to patient requests for care that conflicts with evidence-based guidelines.
arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.
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%.