Synthetic data is increasingly used to enable the development and evaluation of AI systems in domains where access to real-world data is restricted. In healthcare, clinical documentation presents particular challenges due to its sensitivity.
arXiv:2606. 26879v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Synthetic data is increasingly used to enable the development and evaluation of AI systems in domains where access to real-world data is restricted.
arXiv:2610.08161v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Ambient documentation systems are rapidly gaining adoption, yet their impact on clinical note quality remains poorly characterized. We introduce MedC...
arXiv:2605. 30295v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise for clinical reasoning and decision support, but evaluation in realistic, electronic health record-congruent settings remains limited.
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...
arXiv:2508. 01401v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Physicians spend significant time documenting clinical encounters, a burden that contributes to professional burnout.
RASPER is a reward‑aligned summarizer that tailors the extraction of information from unstructured discharge notes to improve downstream clinical predictions. It uses a tunable LLM summarizer trained with reinforcement learning, where the reward comes from the loss of a downstream predictor, and incorporates patient‑specific context via a longitudinal encoder that soft‑prompts the summarizer with structured codes. The approach consistently outperforms strong baselines on readmission prediction and medication recommendation tasks in the MIMIC‑III and MIMIC‑IV datasets.
arXiv:2609.00296v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language model (LLM) agents are increasingly proposed for healthcare tasks such as clinical documentation, evidence retrieval, patient messaging,...
MedDeID is an on‑premises framework that combines in‑house annotation, synthetic‑note generation, model training, inference, pseudonymisation and evaluation to de‑identify clinical text. On a Dutch hospital benchmark, a hospital‑trained transformer detected 98.9 % of identifying text while redacting only 0.24 % of non‑identifier text; a synthetic‑only model achieved 96.1 %. In primary‑care notes, the synthetic‑trained model outperformed the hospital‑trained model in recall and robustness to identifier‑format changes, and an English version trained without real text reached 99.7 % and 98.9 % detection on synthetic benchmarks.
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 Mr Dre, an evaluation suite that tests Deep Research Agents (DRAs) on multi-turn report revision, a process more reflective of human research practices. It defines a unified long‑form report protocol covering comprehensiveness, factuality, and presentation, and includes a human‑verified feedback simulation pipeline. Analysis of five DRAs shows that while agents can address most user feedback, they regress on 16‑28% of previously covered content and citation quality, and over successive turns they disrupt unrelated content and fail to preserve earlier edits, with prompt engineering and dedicated subagents offering limited improvement.
arXiv:2607. 05456v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: While recent advances in large language models have enabled end-to-end automated manuscript generation, existing systems suffer from three critical deficiencies: (i) generated claims are not deterministically grounded in verifiable literature, (ii) experimental results are frequently fabricated rather than executed, and (iii) there exists no standardized, multi-dimensional framework to assess whether AI-generated manuscripts meet the quality and rigor required for real-world publication.