Truth, Trust, and Trouble: Medical AI on the Edge
arXiv:2507. 02983v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant promise for transforming digital health by enabling automated medical question answering.
arXiv:2601. 09853v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Real-world health questions from patients often unintentionally embed false assumptions or premises.
arXiv:2507. 02983v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant promise for transforming digital health by enabling automated medical question answering.
arXiv:2508. 00923v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer health-related questions and support healthcare workflows, yet evidence for their safety still relies heavily on static benchmarks that can rapidly become obsolete or be optimized against.
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.
The paper introduces MIMIC-DOS, a dataset derived from MIMIC-IV that focuses on ICU cases where patient symptoms and medical signs are discordant. It presents CARE, a privacy‑compliant multi‑stage agentic reasoning framework that uses a proprietary LLM to generate structured categories and transitions, while a local LLM performs evidence acquisition and decision‑making. In retrospective evaluations on MIMIC‑DOS, CARE outperforms other LLMs and agentic workflows, demonstrating stronger handling of conflicting clinical evidence while preserving patient privacy.
arXiv:2609.24480v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Deploying Large Language Models (LLMs) in healthcare requires robust performance across two complementary dimensions - diagnostic reasoning: the conv...
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.
The paper introduces HarmReduction, a benchmark for evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to provide accurate and safe harm reduction information to people who use drugs (PWUD). The benchmark, HR-Basic, contains 2,160 question‑answer‑evidence pairs covering safety boundary checks, quantitative value provision, and polysubstance risk inference. Experiments show that even state‑of‑the‑art LLMs struggle with accuracy and can pose severe safety risks, underscoring the need for a dedicated evaluation framework.
arXiv:2606. 28332v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical and health-related questions, yet their safety in high-risk medical scenarios remains poorly understood.
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:2505. 02722v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Although large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive reasoning capabilities across general domains, their effectiveness in real-world clinical practice remains limited.
arXiv:2609.06976v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As medical wearables become integrated into daily chronic disease care, effectively interpreting longitudinal monitoring data is essential for patients...
MedConceal is a new benchmark for evaluating medical dialogue systems on hidden‑concern reasoning under partial observability. It features 300 curated cases and 600 clinician‑LLM interactions, using an interactive patient simulator that hides latent concerns and tracks their revelation and resolution through theory‑grounded communication signals. The benchmark assesses both confirmation (surfacing hidden concerns) and intervention (addressing the primary concern), revealing that current models excel on different metrics while human clinicians still outperform them on intervention success.