LUCAID is an agentic multimodal AI system designed for precision lung cancer pathology, integrating nine modules that cover the entire routine workflow—from quality control and tumor detection to histological subtyping, microenvironment profiling, cellularity quantification, and biomarker scoring (PD‑L1, MET, TROP‑2). The system generates automated structured reports and allows interactive querying of module outputs. In prospective clinical validation, LUCAID achieved 93.0% concordance with an expert‑panel reference standard for clinically actionable decisions, outperforming five experienced thoracic pathologists who ranged from 68.3% to 81.1% concordance.
By Marie-Lisa Eich, Kai Standvoss, Timo Milbich, Alexander M\"ollers, Miriam H\"agele, Philipp Anders, Lars Tharun, Hanna Kontradiuk, Sebastian Kons, Nader Aldoj, Recepcan Adig\"uzel, Adam Narai, Lukas H\"onig, Jonathan Striebel, Binru Yang, Mihnea P. Dragomir, Marvin Sextro, Philipp Keyl, Philipp Jurmeister, Rosemarie Krupar, Evelyn Ramberger, James Wells, Julika Ribbat-Idel, Andreas Kunft, Hussam Shuaib, Christian Groh\'e, Reinhard B\"uttner, David Horst, Klaus-Robert M\"uller, Lukas Ruff, Maximilian Alber, Frederick Klauschen, Simon Schallenberg
Lung cancer tissue diagnostics is complex, as therapy decisions in precision oncology rely on the integration of histomorphological, immunohistochemical, and molecular features. Yet pathological asses...
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
By David Wu, Fateme Nateghi Haredasht, Saloni Kumar Maharaj, Priyank Jain, Jessica Tran, Matthew Gwiazdon, Arjun Rustagi, Jenelle Jindal, Jacob M. Koshy, Vinay Kadiyala, Anup Agarwal, Bassman Tappuni, Brianna French, Sirus Jesudasen, Christopher V. Cosgriff, Rebanta Chakraborty, Jillian Caldwell, Susan Ziolkowski, David J. Iberri, Robert Diep, Rahul S. Dalal, Kira L. Newman, Kristin Galetta, J. Carl Pallais, Nancy Wei, Kathleen M. Buchheit, David I. Hong, Vartan Pahalyants, Ernest Y. Lee, Allen Shih, Tamara B. Kaplan, Vishnu Ravi, Sarita Khemani, Thomas A. Buckley, April S. Liang, Daniel Shirvani, Advait Patil, Nicholas Marshall, Kanav Chopra, Joel Koh, Adi Badhwar, Anastasia Perez, Austin J. Schoeffler, Mahbuba Tusty, Chase M. Walton, Liam G. McCoy, David J. H. Wu, Yingjie Weng, Sumant Ranji, Kevin Schulman, Nigam H. Shah, Jason Hom, Arnold Milstein, Arjun K. Manrai, Adam Rodman, Jonathan H. Chen, Ethan Goh
OpenMTB‑Audit is an open‑source benchmark that tests large language models on 500 synthetic non‑small cell lung cancer cases, covering five adversarial error categories and four safety labels: Supported, Partially Supported, Unsupported, and Insufficient Information. The study found that all eight tested LLMs over‑refused Partially Supported recommendations, collapsing labels to achieve high safety scores. A deterministic seven‑module framework, MTB‑AuditAgent, was introduced to reduce over‑refusal to 6.7% and reach 91.2% accuracy, while an oncologist annotation study highlighted disagreement around the boundary between information sufficiency and treatment optimization.
By Negin Ashrafi, Jia Luo, Stacey M. Frumm, Roxana Daneshjou
arXiv:2412. 17228v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Background: Clinical trials are essential to advancing cancer treatments, but fewer than 10% of adults with cancer enroll in therapeutic trials.
By Jennifer Altreuter, Pavel Trukhanov, Morgan A. Paul, Michael J. Hassett, Irbaz B. Riaz, Muhammad Umar Afzal, Arshad A. Mohammed, Ayub Umair, Huan He, Chueh Husan Hsu, Sarah Sammons, James Lindsay, Emily Mallaber, Harry R. Klein, Gufran Gungor, Matthew Galvin, Michael Deletto, Sabrina Y. Camp, Stephen C. Van Nostrand, James Provencher, Joyce Yu, Naeem Tahir, Jonathan Wischhusen, Olga Kozyreva, Taylor Ortiz, Hande Tuncer, Jad El Masri, Alys Malcolm, Tali Mazor, Ethan Cerami, Kenneth L. Kehl
arXiv:2606. 03198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical AI evaluation increasingly delegates scoring to large language models (LLMs) acting as AI raters, yet their scoring behavior across evaluation conditions has not been quantitatively characterized.
By Sangwon Baek, Kyu Yeon Hur, Kyunga Kim
arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.
By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
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.
By Korosh Vatanparvar, Ashutosh Joshi, Maria Xenochristou, Mohammad Abuzar Hashemi, Prasad Kasu, Deepak Bansal, Daniel Lopez-Martinez, Anchal Nema, Ramya Ganesan, Will Kimbrough, Alex Woody, Yadunandana Rao, Dilek Hakkani-Tur, Wilko Schulz-Mahlendorf
arXiv:2609.14823v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Multimodal clinical decision-making requires reliable reasoning over heterogeneous evidence from electronic health records, medical images, and physiol...
By Ji Lu, Lifei Liu, Haoran Yu, Xianglong Wang, Yiru Fang, Kuo Yang, Huiran Duan, Jianping Gou
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.
By Sandhanakrishnan Ravichandran, Shivesh Kumar, Rogerio Corga Da Silva, Miguel Romano, Reinhard Berkels, Michiel van der Heijden, Olivier Fail, Valentine Emmanuel Gnanapragasam
arXiv:2607. 02175v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Multiple-choice medical benchmarks are increasingly saturated, and recent rubric-based evaluations such as HealthBench have shown that open-ended clinical performance is far from solved - its "Hard" subset top score remains 32%.
By Samiha A. Ismail, Fan X. Chen, Ali Merali
arXiv:2609.21859v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Nearly 90% of drugs entering clinical development ultimately fail, despite billions of dollars in investment. Pharmaceutical companies therefore rely o...
By Jiacheng Lin, Zifeng Wang, Zheng Chen, Erick Scott, Ziwei Yang, Fanyang Yu, Sheng Zhong, Jimeng Sun