arXiv:2608.31016v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes, and published audits find their dominant error is omission: information the encounter established that the n...
arXiv:2604. 07709v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A heavily safety-trained model will hand a physician the full, patient-followable benzodiazepine taper and refuse it to the patient who needs it, over identical clinical facts; the knowledge is present either way.
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
arXiv:2603.11413v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: A recent Nature Medicine study reported that ChatGPT Health under-triages 51.6% of emergencies and concluded that consumer-facing AI triage p...
IatroBench is a pre‑registered benchmark that evaluates language models on clinical omission and commission harms across 60 scenarios and six models. Using a physician‑written rubric scored by Claude Opus 4.6, the study finds that models tend to withhold more information from patients than from doctors—a phenomenon termed framing‑contingent withholding—while also revealing varied patterns of omission across different models. The benchmark highlights how framing influences the amount of medical information shared by AI systems.
arXiv:2608. 07796v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably.
The paper introduces a benchmark of 400 synthetic healthcare workflow episodes to evaluate large language model (LLM) agents’ reliability in escalating care when evidence is missing or conflicting. It finds that while clean decision accuracy is high (0.97), models miss a large proportion of necessary escalations (32–97%) under uncertainty, and even the largest 9.7B model’s performance drops to 0.78 in conflict scenarios. A workflow-aware controller improves utility and reduces missed escalations, but its effectiveness is limited by lexical generalization failures.
The study evaluates how clinical language models perform when patient narratives are presented in different voices—clinical, socioeconomic, and cultural—using 1,000 MedQA cases paired with three retellings each. All 12 tested models show a significant drop in accuracy (about 26% more errors) when the patient speaks in a marked voice, a penalty that persists even when the original vignette is included verbatim and is not explained by measured retelling properties. The authors find that rewriting the patient’s account into a clinical vignette before answering can halve this accuracy gap, though structured schema pipelines and additional reasoning tools offer limited improvements.
KnowBench is a new benchmark for clinical AI that measures Effort Reduction (ER), the proportion of system-generated clinical work product accepted by clinicians after expert and safety review. The metric is applied uniformly across various administrative tasks—visit notes, billing codes, orders, EHR summarization, patient summaries, and decision support—using the clinician’s review-and-attestation as ground truth. An initial deployment of Knowtex’s models achieved an aggregate ER of 97.99% across more than one million encounters in six months, with specialty-specific ER ranging from 96.8% to 98.9%.
The study evaluates a label‑free rubric‑clarification procedure that rewrites only the most contested sub‑criteria of a rubric, aiming to reduce disagreement among large‑language‑model (LLM) judges. Across six rubric conditions and three datasets (SummEval, HealthBench, USR Topical‑Chat), the method increased inter‑judge agreement on SummEval by 0.069 Krippendorff’s α, but did not improve agreement with human expert ratings. In other datasets, neither inter‑judge nor human agreement met the preregistered effect criteria, and human agreement was actually lower after editing contested clauses compared to random edits.
The paper presents a cross‑provider review contract for coding agents, detailing resource separation, bounded execution, and explicit failure handling. In a controlled pilot of 20 paired development turns, 8 reviews yielded material findings, and a boundary‑condition scan uncovered and repaired several defects, including false successes and cancellation issues. Subsequent CLI probes and a preregistered shadow study identified additional defects related to reviewer exit status and tool usage, leading to an audit cohort and ongoing data collection.
The study evaluates an auditable patient‑timeline reconstruction system that tracks provenance, records revisions, and refuses to answer when evidence is missing. Using a synthetic corpus of 1,000 patients and 3,353 notes, two provenance‑aware Evidence Graph operators reduced graph size by 33–37% while preserving all answers across 6,813 query points; a fixed‑window baseline failed to answer over half of the points. The system’s evidence‑gating mechanisms (BioClinicalBERT and a zero‑shot LLM) responded appropriately to evidence‑unavailable controls, but performance varied on marker‑free controls, with BERT maintaining high accuracy but the LLM’s coverage dropping sharply. "whyItMatters":"The results demonstrate that provenance‑aware evidence graphs can significantly reduce data complexity while maintaining answer integrity, highlighting a practical approach to building auditable clinical NLP systems."