arXiv:2505. 14107v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The emergence of groundbreaking large language models capable of performing complex reasoning tasks holds significant promise for addressing various scientific challenges, including those arising in complex clinical scenarios.
The paper introduces the first benchmark for evaluating confidence estimation in large language models during multi‑turn medical consultations, combining three types of medical data and an information sufficiency gradient to capture how confidence and correctness evolve as evidence accumulates. Experiments with 27 methods reveal that token‑level and consistency‑level confidence approaches are limited by medical data, and that medical reasoning must be judged on both diagnostic accuracy and information completeness. Building on these findings, the authors propose MedConf, a retrieval‑augmented, linguistically grounded self‑assessment framework that aligns patient information with supporting, missing, and contradictory relations, producing interpretable confidence estimates that outperform existing methods across multiple datasets and LLMs.
arXiv:2607. 13036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving.
arXiv:2607. 20462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, stressing the need for reliable traceability of model-generated output with watermarking.
arXiv:2606. 07237v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization.
arXiv:2606. 29876v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching.
arXiv:2608.21948v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Complex clinical reasoning requires models to update diagnostic hypotheses as new evidence emerges and to coordinate different medical specialities und...
MTDiag is a newly released multi-turn diagnostic dialogue dataset designed to evaluate large language models (LLMs) in clinically meaningful ways. It is built from DDXPlus, MIMIC-IV, and AJCR case reports, covering both common emergency department presentations and rare conditions, and normalizes cases into a canonical schema using UMLS concept identifiers and ICD-10 codes. The dataset includes a UserLM‑8B utterance‑generation pipeline and physician‑validated natural‑language utterances, and introduces clinical knowledge‑grounded metrics that go beyond simple diagnostic accuracy for multi‑turn differential diagnosis tasks.
arXiv:2605.20292v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Numerical time-series models effectively process irregular electronic health record (EHR) trajectories, but do not expose which temporal patterns s...
arXiv:2607. 25933v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical diagnostic evaluation should not only assess whether models can provide correct diagnoses, but also reflect the realities of clinical practice, including progressive disclosure of multimodal information, dynamic updating of diagnostic hypotheses, and continuous refinement of clinical reasoning.
The paper introduces a neurosymbolic verification framework that audits the internal consistency of vision-language models (VLMs) when generating radiology reports. By autoformalizing free‑text findings into structured propositional evidence and using an SMT solver (Z3) alongside a clinical knowledge base, the system determines whether each diagnostic claim is entailed, hallucinated, or omitted. Evaluation on seven VLMs across five chest X‑ray benchmarks reveals distinct reasoning failure modes—such as conservative observation and stochastic hallucination—that traditional metrics miss, and shows that enforcing solver‑backed entailment can eliminate unsupported hallucinations and improve diagnostic soundness and precision.
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.