arXiv:2606. 00019v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient artificial intelligence (AI) documentation tools are increasingly deployed to reduce clinician documentation burden, but their implications for biased language in clinical notes remain unclear.
By Yiliang Zhou, Yawen Guo, Sairam Sutari, Jasmine Dhillon, Alexandra L. Beck, Emilie Chow, Steven Tam, Danielle Perret, Deepti Pandita, Gelareh Sadigh, Archana J. McEligot, Kai Zheng
arXiv:2503. 10647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This study evaluated the diagnostic reliability of two Large Language Models (LLMs), Google Gemini 2.
By Krishna Subedi
arXiv:2609.22239v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Ambient AI is increasingly adopted in healthcare to automatically generate clinical notes from patient-clinician conversations, with the potential to s...
By Jakir Hossain, Yi-Fei Zhao, Hongjian Wang, Minmei Shih, Katie Leigh Mullen, Ahmad P. Tafti, Leming Zhou, Manoj Purohit, William Hogan, Jay Zeng, Elizabeth Skidmore, Yanshan Wang
arXiv:2607. 16989v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Introduction.
By Mohammad Arvan, Amber E. Osterholt, Bailee Rue, Yuvaneswaren Ramakrishnan Sureshbabu, Krishna Riteshkumar Patel, Rebecca T. Feinstein, Bethany C. Bray, Niranjan S. Karnik
arXiv:2509. 08604v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant potential in medicine, with many studies adapting them through continued pre-training or fine-tuning on medical data to enhance domain-specific accuracy and safety.
By Anran Li, Lingfei Qian, Mengmeng Du, Yu Yin, Yan Hu, Zihao Sun, Yihang Fu, Hyunjae Kim, Erica Stutz, Xuguang Ai, Qianqian Xie, Rui Zhu, Jimin Huang, Yifan Yang, Siru Liu, Yih-Chung Tham, Lucila Ohno-Machado, Hyunghoon Cho, Zhiyong Lu, Hua Xu, Qingyu Chen
The study demonstrates that text produced by large language models (LLMs) leaves a distinct stylometric footprint—primarily increased entropy and lexical diversity—across multiple models and domains. In contrast, AI editing of human text does not replicate this footprint; edited texts show only modest lexical diversity gains and reduced entropy, with lexical density emerging as the key distinguishing feature. Consequently, stylometric analysis can differentiate AI-generated from AI-edited content, but is less effective at distinguishing either from purely human writing.
By Zhengyang Shan, Yukyung Lee, Sophie Hao
The paper introduces TRACE, a method that removes duplicated text—known as note bloat—from clinical notes by leveraging EHR metadata and frequency-based de‑duplication. Across 5.3 million notes from diverse patient cohorts, TRACE eliminated 47.3 % of chart text while preserving information extraction and prediction performance, with only 0.3–6.6 % of removed content being author‑generated. The authors project that applying TRACE could yield net savings of $1.00 M to $13.58 M over three years at a large academic center, depending on model pricing schemes.
By Jordan L. Cahoon, Chloe Stanwyck, Asad Aali, Rachel Madding, Sulaiman S. Somani, Emma Sun, Yixing Jiang, Renumathy Dhanasekaran, Emily Alsentzer
The study examines how professional English editing influences AI text detectors’ false-positive rates for non-native academic writing. Using 135,389 pairs of original and edited manuscripts, researchers found that detector responses varied widely—some editors increased AI scores while others decreased them—and that score changes correlated with the extent of editing. These results highlight professional editing style as a key confounding factor in AI detection, complicating the distinction between AI authorship and linguistic style.
By Hyeonchu Park, Gahye Jeong, Bugeun Kim
MedDeID is an on‑premises framework that combines in‑house annotation, synthetic‑note generation, model training, inference, pseudonymisation and evaluation to de‑identify clinical text. On a Dutch hospital benchmark, a hospital‑trained transformer detected 98.9 % of identifying text while redacting only 0.24 % of non‑identifier text; a synthetic‑only model achieved 96.1 %. In primary‑care notes, the synthetic‑trained model outperformed the hospital‑trained model in recall and robustness to identifier‑format changes, and an English version trained without real text reached 99.7 % and 98.9 % detection on synthetic benchmarks.
By Stig Hellemans, Tom Stroobants, Elyne Scheurwegs, Pieter Meysman, Philippe G. Jorens, Kris Laukens
arXiv:2606. 05970v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models are increasingly used for structured extraction from clinical free-text notes, but the sensitivity of their output to upstream configuration choices is less understood than their accuracy on fixed benchmarks.
By Martin Murin
arXiv:2608. 10715v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Over the past several years, LLM-powered chatbots and agents have become widely used as a tool for academic writing.
By Lena Holzwarth, Rita Gonz\'alez-M\'arquez, Dmitry Kobak
arXiv:2609.14288v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models increasingly analyze computational results and draft manuscripts, making reliable communication as important as correct analysis....
By Jihan Kim