arXiv:2610.08585v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to support ambient documentation and clinical reasoning. Here we examine the impact of a fail...
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly relied upon to support ambient documentation and clinical reasoning. Here we examine the impact of a failure mode shared between these two applications by...
arXiv:2608.29241v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical voice agents are now deployed in routine care, where real patients do not wait their turn: they interrupt. These systems typically use a casca...
arXiv:2608.01017v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as...
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 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.
The paper introduces PrecepTron, a 32‑billion‑parameter language model fine‑tuned with low‑rank adaptation to evaluate clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs) at a physician level. It also releases GRAND‑ROUNDS, a benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. Using PrecepTron, the authors replicate key findings from major medical AI studies and explore new questions about LLM diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating that fine‑tuned models can provide consistent, scalable physician‑level scoring.
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.
arXiv:2503. 10647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This study evaluated the diagnostic reliability of two Large Language Models (LLMs), Google Gemini 2.
arXiv:2606. 29034v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) increasingly summarize clinical evidence, where a claim's weight depends on how strongly it is supported.
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...
The paper investigates whether clinical concepts are represented as distinct, causally influential centers within the latent space of large language models (LLMs). By evaluating eleven open-weight LLMs, the authors discover that each model contains dedicated clinical concept centers that are interpretable, activate only on relevant clinical narratives, and drive model behavior in both constrained and open-ended contexts. These centers can be leveraged for evaluation and performance improvement, as steering models along them enhances downstream clinical outcomes and aligns with clinician preferences.