arXiv:2607. 06802v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Open physiological corpora are heterogeneous: they use different sensors, labels, sampling rates, recording settings, and clinical endpoints.
arXiv:2609.15015v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synthetic perturbations appear to offer inexpensive calibration data for LLM evaluators in biomedical ML, where expert review is scarce. Yet a planted...
SafeTune is a source‑available library that consolidates four safety‑intervention paradigms—post‑hoc weight recovery, safety‑constrained fine‑tuning, gradient‑based unlearning, and inference‑time steering—into a single, configuration‑driven workflow. It offers shared interpretability, evaluation, and deployment tools, and its modular registry allows easy addition of new methods, benchmarks, judges, models, and fine‑tuning domains. The authors demonstrate SafeTune with controlled comparisons and case studies in finance and medical deployments, showing how it characterizes safety drift, evaluates interventions on refusal‑behavior and capability metrics, and supports calibrated or layered mitigation.
arXiv:2608. 16852v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Regulatory compliance monitoring in deployed language models is increasingly implemented as a legal and audit control, checking model outputs against written rules spanning data protection, healthcare, financial regulation, and platform policy.
arXiv:2601. 22324v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Modern clinical practice relies on evidence-based guidelines implemented as compact scoring systems composed of a small number of interpretable decision rules.
arXiv:2606. 09500v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Objective.
arXiv:2607. 24371v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Healthcare interoperability requires AI systems to produce structured outputs conforming to standardized schemas including ICD-10 for diagnostic coding, CPT for procedure billing, and HL7 FHIR for data exchange.
The study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) with in‑context learning can better identify institution‑specific protected health information (PHI) in electronic health records than existing de‑identification systems. Using 100 pediatric oncology notes from Texas Children’s Hospital, eight LLMs were compared to two purpose‑built systems and pattern‑based baselines under three progressively specific prompts. The best LLM achieved an F1 score of 0.918, recovering 79% of previously missed PHI categories and reaching a recall of 0.981 after iterative prompt refinement, demonstrating that calibrated single‑pass prompting can close the institutional PHI gap while balancing precision and recall.
arXiv:2610.01616v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The emergence of foundation models for molecular property prediction requires a high degree of AI data readiness, including reliable metadata annotat...
arXiv:2607. 24419v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Deep models have substantially advanced 12-lead ECG classification, yet their refinement still relies heavily on human experts to inspect failures and iteratively revise classifier designs.
The paper introduces MEGA-CDP, a benchmark designed to evaluate medical large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate clinical decision pathways (CDPs) that adhere to clinical practice guidelines. MEGA-CDP is built from 2,274 English and Chinese guidelines, producing 42,353 clinical cases with explicit reference CDPs, and supports both single-turn and multi-turn interactions. Experiments on 16 LLMs reveal that reliable guideline adherence remains difficult, underscoring the need for CDP-focused evaluation and the potential of MEGA-CDP to advance medical LLM performance.
arXiv:2606. 14149v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare settings, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses risks when clinical decisions are involved.
The study compared human and large language model (LLM) workflows for title‑and‑abstract screening in a complex scoping review. Human reviewers and two GPT‑5.4 file‑batch runs retained 42.2‑45.0% of records with 82.3‑82.9% recall, while Gemini 3.1 achieved the highest recall (83.9%) but retained 56.7% of records. Identical GPT‑5.4 runs showed 91.7% agreement yet differed on 94 records, including 29 verified eligible ones.