arXiv:2606. 08969v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical summarization, but their outputs can omit medically important information and introduce unsupported claims.
arXiv:2605. 28910v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise on summarization tasks, but they often produce hallucinations, which are unsupported or incorrect statements that limit their reliability in specialized healthcare applications.
arXiv:2409. 07314v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: While Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve superhuman performance on standardized medical licensing exams, these static benchmarks have become saturated and increasingly disconnected from the functional requirements of clinical workflows.
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:2608. 14509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Systems that ask a language model to reach a conclusion from many sources usually concatenate them into one prompt.
arXiv:2609.14825v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are often deemed unsafe for clinical question answering because of their tendency to hallucinate. Retrieval augmentation...
arXiv:2601.03418v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Trustworthy clinical summarization requires every claim to be traceable to its evidence, yet existing attribution often resolves only to the senten...
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.
arXiv:2607. 01153v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Safety evaluations for language models increasingly depend on judgments about ambiguous natural-language behaviour: whether a model followed an instruction, refused appropriately, complied with a policy, or misreported progress in an agentic task.
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.
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:2508. 00923v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer health-related questions and support healthcare workflows, yet evidence for their safety still relies heavily on static benchmarks that can rapidly become obsolete or be optimized against.
The paper introduces ConRad, a reinforcement learning framework that fine‑tunes large vision‑language models to generate calibrated verbalized confidence estimates for radiology reports. ConRad offers both a single report‑level confidence score and a sentence‑level variant, trained with the GRPO algorithm and logarithmic scoring rewards to encourage truthful self‑assessment. Experiments show significant calibration improvements over existing methods, and clinical evaluation indicates that report‑level scores align well with clinicians’ judgments, enabling targeted review of low‑confidence statements.