arXiv:2609.01202v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical trials are essential for advancing cancer care and drug development, but many fail because of insufficient patient enrollment. While there i...
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2608.28974v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinically relevant oncology information is distributed across heterogeneous, longitudinal documentation, creating substantial abstraction burden and r...
arXiv:2508. 14817v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Objective: To evaluate whether retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can serve as an efficient alternative to long-context prompting for clinical reasoning over electronic health records (EHRs).
arXiv:2412. 17228v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Background: Clinical trials are essential to advancing cancer treatments, but fewer than 10% of adults with cancer enroll in therapeutic trials.
arXiv:2606. 18203v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The LLM-empowered personal health agents with user health (sensor) metrics have offered a promising pathway to alleviate global disparities in healthcare access.
arXiv:2608.29241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical voice agents are now deployed in routine care, where real patients do not wait their turn: they interrupt. These systems typically use a casca...
arXiv:2607. 25485v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf.
arXiv:2509. 02594v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stakes clinical scenarios.
The study evaluates AI-generated summaries for cancer patients using a dual assessment framework that includes human experts and LLM-as-a-judge. Human domain experts—oncology clinicians and patient-facing care staff—assess summary quality on accuracy, clinical relevance, and readability. The research identifies limitations such as omissions and minor inaccuracies, which are then used to iteratively refine prompts, grounding, and safety guardrails.
The paper introduces MIMIC-DOS, a dataset derived from MIMIC-IV that focuses on ICU cases where patient symptoms and medical signs are discordant. It presents CARE, a privacy‑compliant multi‑stage agentic reasoning framework that uses a proprietary LLM to generate structured categories and transitions, while a local LLM performs evidence acquisition and decision‑making. In retrospective evaluations on MIMIC‑DOS, CARE outperforms other LLMs and agentic workflows, demonstrating stronger handling of conflicting clinical evidence while preserving patient privacy.
The paper introduces MACD, a Multi-Agent Clinical Diagnosis framework that enables large language models to self‑learn clinical knowledge through a multi‑agent pipeline of summarization, refinement, and application. MACD is extended into a human‑AI collaborative workflow where multiple diagnostician agents consult iteratively, guided by a judge agent and human oversight. Evaluation on the MIMIC‑MACD cohort shows significant gains in diagnostic accuracy—an average 11.6 percentage‑point improvement over authoritative knowledge for open‑weight LLMs and an 18.3‑percentage‑point boost over physician‑only diagnosis in text‑only vignettes.