The paper examines how Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) and Named Entity Recognition (NER) affect the quality of lay summaries of radiology reports. Using a framework that extracts clinically relevant findings via NER and grounds them with RAG, the authors evaluate few‑shot and fine‑tuned versions of Qwen and BioBART. Results show that NER consistently improves readability and overall quality, RAG alone offers no benefit and can introduce hallucinations, and the best performance comes from fine‑tuned BioBART with NER.
By Egecan \c{C}elik Evgin, \.Ilknur Karadeniz, Olcay Taner Y{\i}ld{\i}z
arXiv:2605.28740v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: As large language models are increasingly deployed for clinical text, ensuring they can reliably signal their own uncertainty becomes critica...
By Bushi Xiao, Sarvesh Soni, Daisy Zhe Wang
arXiv:2609.13581v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Discharge summaries are lengthy medical documents that summarize a hospital in-patient visit. Automatically generating them can reduce documentation bu...
By Paul Landes, Sitara Rao, Aaron Jeremy Chaise, Barbara Di Eugenio
arXiv:2608.28624v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Accurate interpretation of single-visit and longitudinal clinical assessments for Parkinson's disease is time-consuming and often depends on speciali...
By Sana Alamgeera, Denise Goberta, Muhammad Irshad, Anne H. H. Ngu
The paper introduces BRIE, a scalable framework that automatically creates question–answer pairs from longitudinal electronic health record notes, validated by nineteen clinicians. It offers a continuously maintainable benchmark for evaluating large language models in clinical settings, addressing limitations of manual, costly, and quickly outdated existing benchmarks. Experiments across nine LLMs and five inference strategies reveal that even state‑of‑the‑art systems often miss clinically important information, especially for synthesis‑heavy queries.
The paper introduces BRIE, a continuously maintainable benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) in electronic health record (EHR) information retrieval. It presents a scalable framework that automatically generates question–answer pairs from longitudinal EHR notes, validated by nineteen clinicians. The benchmark allows assessment of multiple inference strategies and highlights that state‑of‑the‑art LLMs often miss clinically important information, especially when synthesis across documents is required.
By Jordan L. Cahoon, Chloe O. Stanwyck, Sulaiman Somani, Philip Chung, Kevin R Keet, Kameron C. Black, Andrea T. Fisher, Sarita Khemani, Jerry Liu, Stephen Ma, Saloni K. Maharaj, Rita M. Pandya, Eduardo Perez-Guerrero, Priyanka Pillai, Lisa Shieh, David J. H. Wu, James Xie, James C. McAvoy, Teresa Nguyen, Jessica Tran, Lucy Yin, Bridget Lin, Alison Callahan, Jason A. Fries, Nigam H. Shah, Emily Alsentzer
CliQ‑RRG is a two‑stage framework for generating radiology reports that aligns visual and textual data using disease‑aware embeddings and prior‑guided attention to capture multi‑view dependencies. The second stage retrieves graph‑grounded clinical evidence and employs a large language model to produce concise, interpretable question‑answer style reports with diagnostic summaries. Experiments on two chest X‑ray benchmarks show that CliQ‑RRG outperforms previous methods on both lexical and clinical metrics, producing accurate and clinically coherent reports.
By Chandravardhan Singh Raghaw, Shahid Shafi Dar, Arnav Nishith Sharma, Shrey Modi, Nagendra Kumar
CliQ‑RRG is a two‑stage framework for generating radiology reports that aligns visual and textual data using disease‑aware embeddings and a Prior‑Guided Attention Module to capture multi‑view dependencies. In the second stage, GraphRAG‑guided retrieval adds graph‑grounded clinical evidence, and a large language model restructures the content into concise question‑answer pairs with diagnostic summaries. Experiments on two chest X‑ray benchmarks show that CliQ‑RRG outperforms previous methods in both lexical and clinical metrics, producing accurate and clinically coherent QA‑style reports.
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.
By Muhammad Aurangzeb Ahmad, Kim Shyu, Leon Oliver, Fergus Sleight, Paul Landau
The article reviews existing tools for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models, identifying six key dimensions—problem representation, temporal synthesis, differential and management reasoning, counterfactual reasoning, calibrated uncertainty, and reasoning faithfulness. It finds that no single instrument covers all dimensions, with some aspects reasonably addressed while others, especially faithfulness and counterfactual reasoning, remain weakly evaluated. The authors propose combining current tools through binary rubric items, separate completeness and correctness scores, importance weighting, safety caps, temporal consistency checks, and chance‑corrected reliability reporting, and call for further design work on uncertainty, counterfactual reasoning, and faithfulness in longitudinal free‑text contexts.
By Zhangshu Joshua Jiang, Zina Ibrahim, James T. Teo
arXiv:2609.13481v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Large language models have made abstractive summarization remarkably fluent, but generated summaries can hallucinate facts, posing serious risks in bio...
By Saad Bin Ather, Muhammad Saif, Ali Hassan Khan, Manzer Abbas, Hajra Waheed
arXiv:2608. 20331v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Personalized interpretation of medical reports has emerged as an increasingly important need among patients.
By Shiao Xie, Siyu Chen, Jianwei Lv, Bo Yuan, Yujin Wang, Xiandong Li