The paper "Medical Causal Hypothesis Verification with Large Language Models" reports a small-scale study evaluating eight LLMs on 17 medical causal hypotheses. The authors introduce an evaluation framework and annotate 1,067 evidence points across six criteria, using nine metrics to assess performance. Results show that while LLMs have strong recall, they frequently fail to provide valid scientific articles, evidence, or reject unsupported hypotheses, revealing a critical limitation for their use in healthcare.
By Safiyyah Ahmed, Abrar Ansari, Md Aminul Islam, Elena Zheleva
arXiv:2507. 20993v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: We study how to learn treatment policies from multimodal electronic health records (EHRs) that consist of tabular data and clinical text.
By Henri Arno, Thomas Demeester
arXiv:2608. 15382v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy rather than reasoning about interventions, mechanisms, harms, evidence, and uncertainty.
By Ummara Mumtaz, Aimen Noor, Awais Ahmed
arXiv:2608.15382v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for healthcare decision support, but their evaluations still reward single-answer accuracy r...
By Ummara Mumtaz, Aimen Noor, Awais Ahmed
arXiv:2605. 01134v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: The dominant noun-based modeling paradigm has fundamentally constrained AI development, precluding any adequate representation of the future as an open temporal dimension.
By Jia Li, Vipin Kumar, Rui Zhang
arXiv:2605.07785v3 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) in medical imaging aim to improve model interpretability by predicting intermediate clinical concepts before final...
By Amy Rafferty, Rishi Ramaesh, Ajitha Rajan
arXiv:2608. 03085v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Causal inference has traditionally centered on scalar outcomes: whether a patient recovers, how much a worker earns, or how many visits a website receives.
By Kevin Christian Wibisono, Yixin Wang
The paper proposes supervised learning objectives for estimating causal effects of high‑dimensional treatments, such as text or continuous variables, by recasting causal inference as a learning problem under realizability and no unobserved confounding. It shows that causal error can be decomposed into moment‑balancing errors of increasing order and designs objectives that directly improve causal estimation by exploiting the structure of conditional outcomes. The authors also demonstrate how to project high‑dimensional treatment effects onto coarser attributes, enabling a single model to answer multiple causal questions without extra attribute‑specific training, and validate their approach empirically across continuous, discrete, and text treatments.
By Nikita Dhawan, Arnav Paruthi, Andrew Kim, Lovedeep Gondara, Jekaterina Novikova, Chris J. Maddison
Understanding the temporal progression of symptoms in clinical narratives is critical for disease monitoring, safety surveillance, and causality assessment. Clinical narratives, however, rarely provide explicit temporal anchors.
arXiv:2602. 16481v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Causal discovery seeks to uncover causal relations from data, typically represented as causal graphs, and is essential for predicting the effects of interventions.
By Zihao Li, Fabrizio Russo
arXiv:2606. 05972v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Causal graphs provide a high-level language for making mechanisms transparent.
By Nirit Nussbaum-Hoffer, Nitay Calderon, Liat Ein-Dor, Roi Reichart
The paper introduces BAR, a Budget‑Aware LLM Reasoning framework that enhances post‑discharge risk prediction by integrating external medical knowledge graphs (KGs). BAR refines KGs into disease‑specific evidence graphs with support scores and provenance, then uses an LLM to plan, navigate, and verify evidence within a patient‑specific budget. Experiments on MIMIC‑III and MIMIC‑IV across eight diseases show BAR improves AUPRC by 3.4 points, raises citation precision from 59.8% to 77.9%, and uses only 62‑65% of the allotted budget.
By Chen Chen, Dongjie Wang, Mei Liu, Zijun Yao