The paper introduces Clinical Intent Extraction (CIE), a task that transforms fragmented clinical action annotations into complete structured records called Clinical Intent Representation (CIR). CIR decomposes each action into verb, type, coded target, timing, condition, request‑intent (aligned to HL7 FHIR) and modality, adding dimensions absent in prior datasets. By re‑expressing five heterogeneous corpora into CIR, the authors create CIRCA, a benchmark of 10,011 harmonized intents with human‑validated subsets, crosswalks, and a deterministic FHIR R4 mapper, and demonstrate that existing models perform poorly on the full task, highlighting the need for targeted development.
By Alexander Apartsin, Yehudit Aperstein
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on unprocessed electronic medical record data for clinical registry abstraction, focusing on the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. In a pilot at one academic center, the LLM identified candidate data sources for each registry question, which abstractors used to define question‑specific document sets. In a subsequent validation at a second center, the LLM answered 157 registry questions with an overall mean accuracy of 91.5%, but accuracy dropped from 96% for simple medication or event flag questions to 62% for event timing questions, reflecting increasing ambiguity and required clinical reasoning.
By James Matheson, Betsy Castillo, Andrew Y. Shin, David Scheinker
The study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) with in‑context learning can better identify institution‑specific protected health information (PHI) in electronic health records than existing de‑identification systems. Using 100 pediatric oncology notes from Texas Children’s Hospital, eight LLMs were compared to two purpose‑built systems and pattern‑based baselines under three progressively specific prompts. The best LLM achieved an F1 score of 0.918, recovering 79% of previously missed PHI categories and reaching a recall of 0.981 after iterative prompt refinement, demonstrating that calibrated single‑pass prompting can close the institutional PHI gap while balancing precision and recall.
By Daniel Palacios, Matthew Brady Neeley, Angel Adetomike Otto, Shalini Dhamodharan, John P. Woodhouse, Chi-fan Lin, Mark Zobeck, Zhandong Liu, Hyun-Hwan Jeong
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.
By Yifan Zhang, Rahmatollah Beheshti
arXiv:2604. 05435v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Incomplete or inconsistent discharge documentation drives care fragmentation and avoidable readmissions.
By Akshat Dasula, Prasanna Desikan, Jaideep Srivastava, Shivali Dalmia, Abhishek Mukherji
arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...
By Sebastian Fox, Luke Markham, Ryan Lail, Michael Karotsieris
arXiv:2609.39049v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: A large language model (LLM) can rate depression severity directly from a social media post or mark which clinical criteria the post shows and let co...
By Xinkai Chen
A large language model (LLM) can rate depression severity directly from a social media post or mark which clinical criteria the post shows and let code turn the count into a label. The latter is easie...
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. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.
arXiv:2609.13238v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Maxillofacial report generation from cone beam computed tomography is scored here by a composite objective placing 80% of its weight on a large languag...
By Ajo Babu George, Govind Arun, Sidharth N Krishna, Uma Ranjan
arXiv:2601. 22025v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating Large Language Model (LLM) applications differs from conventional software testing because outputs are probabilistic, semantically variable, and sensitive to prompt and model changes.
By Daniel Commey
arXiv:2609.24885v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: When a language model answers from a curated corpus via graph-based retrieval, a large grounding uplift does not establish reasoning over the retrieved...
By John J. O'Hare