arXiv:2610.08585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to support ambient documentation and clinical reasoning. Here we examine the impact of a fail...
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:2608.01017v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as...
arXiv:2606. 07237v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization.
arXiv:2601.09717v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Online medical consultations contain sensitive health information whose privacy implications depend not only on the entities mentioned but al...
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...
The paper investigates how misleading context—specifically fabricated evidence and bare assertions—affects large language models’ medical question‑answering performance. Experiments on MedMisBench show that models are more prone to adopt answers based on assertions than fabricated evidence, and that these misleading cues are often disclosed in reasoning traces but rarely in final responses. A monitor that reads open reasoning traces can detect most corrupted decisions, whereas monitoring only responses is less effective.
arXiv:2503. 10647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This study evaluated the diagnostic reliability of two Large Language Models (LLMs), Google Gemini 2.
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.
The paper investigates how the inference setup of large language models (LLMs) influences their behavior in a medical resource‑allocation scenario. By comparing paired‑context and independent‑inference experiments, the authors show that adding a single contrasting patient sentence can shift the model’s probability assignments in opposite directions across most tested models. Additional experiments varying scenario attributes further demonstrate that patient information can have context‑dependent effects on LLM outputs.
The paper introduces PrecepTron, a 32‑billion‑parameter language model fine‑tuned with low‑rank adaptation to evaluate clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) at a physician level. It also releases GRAND‑ROUNDS, a benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. Using PrecepTron, the authors replicate key findings from major medical AI studies and explore new questions about LLM diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating that fine‑tuned models can provide consistent, scalable physician‑level scoring.
The paper introduces a clinically grounded privacy evaluation framework for medical language models, assessing leakage across a spectrum of adversarial access levels—from publicly inferable demographics to leaked note fragments. Using this framework on an LM pretrained on 378,000 clinical notes, the authors find that routine encounter metadata leads to high verbatim memorization and significant recovery of sensitive diagnoses (e.g., AUROC 0.91 for abortion, 0.82 for HIV). They also note that exact-match memorization can overstate disclosure, with 36% of memorized tokens being templated documentation, underscoring the risks of training on longitudinal clinical data and offering a reusable evaluation tool.