arXiv:2608. 03731v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Patient-facing medical LLMs and agents increasingly answer symptom questions before clinician contact, where the key safety question is what action the user should take next.
arXiv:2605.11533v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Routine clinical check-up reports combine laboratory measurements, physiological assessments, imaging findings and visually structured information,...
arXiv:2606. 18613v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The most plausible near-term role of medical LLMs is to assist rather than replace physicians, yet current evaluations often test isolated capabilities: clinical knowledge, EHR system interaction, or patient communication.
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on sequential emergency department triage, where acuity labels are predicted from progressively longer nurse‑patient conversations. Six LLMs were tested at five checkpoints on simulated and physician‑authored dialogues, showing a decline from moderate‑to‑substantial agreement on full records to only fair‑to‑moderate agreement at each checkpoint. The models consistently anchor on chief complaint exchanges and fail to integrate later evidence, yielding low agreement with clinicians (QWK 0.295 vs. 0.887‑0.929) and concentrating predictions on ESI‑2 and ESI‑3. whyItMatters":"The findings reveal that LLMs, despite strong offline performance, cannot reliably handle the sequential nature of real‑time triage, highlighting a critical gap for safe deployment in emergency settings."
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:2609.00296v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for healthcare tasks such as clinical documentation, evidence retrieval, patient messaging,...
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.
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 examines how large language models (LLMs) perform in early medical consultations, a phase often overlooked in evaluations. Researchers tested three API models across physician-authored, multi-turn vignettes under baseline and entry-to-care instruction conditions, producing 24 fixed-script transcripts and 12 adaptive simulation transcripts. Findings revealed that LLMs frequently offered self-care advice before receiving patient input and varied in providing structured handoff summaries, indicating that the preformulation gap—how LLMs handle vague or misframed initial concerns—must be directly assessed through first-contact behavior rather than relying on later diagnostic accuracy.
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:2609.38480v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients presen...
arXiv:2608. 10258v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly provide conversational health information that may influence treatment decisions, yet existing benchmarks do not isolate whether medication-safety boundaries persist across follow-ups after explicit self-treatment intent.
MedConceal is a new benchmark for evaluating medical dialogue systems on hidden‑concern reasoning under partial observability. It features 300 curated cases and 600 clinician‑LLM interactions, using an interactive patient simulator that hides latent concerns and tracks their revelation and resolution through theory‑grounded communication signals. The benchmark assesses both confirmation (surfacing hidden concerns) and intervention (addressing the primary concern), revealing that current models excel on different metrics while human clinicians still outperform them on intervention success.