arXiv:2607. 14385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models achieve strong scores on medical benchmarks, yet these benchmarks evaluate each question in isolation, providing no measure of whether a system can distinguish clinically similar presentations requiring different interventions.
arXiv:2608. 16643v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation.
arXiv:2608.29582v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Current evaluations of large language models (LLMs) primarily focus on factual knowledge retrieval, overlooking the fundamental challenge of navigati...
Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.
MedRAGChecker is a claim-level verification framework designed for biomedical retrieval‑augmented generation (RAG). It decomposes generated answers into atomic claims and assesses each claim’s support by combining evidence‑grounded natural language inference with biomedical knowledge‑graph consistency signals. The aggregated claim decisions provide diagnostics that distinguish retrieval and generation failures, such as faithfulness, under‑evidence, contradiction, and safety‑critical errors, and the system is distilled into compact models for scalable evaluation.
arXiv:2505. 14107v5 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: The emergence of groundbreaking large language models capable of performing complex reasoning tasks holds significant promise for addressing various scientific challenges, including those arising in complex clinical scenarios.
arXiv:2609.07601v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The application of large language models (LLMs) to personalized medical assistants has garnered growing interest. However, existing medical benchmark...
arXiv:2608.28624v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Accurate interpretation of single-visit and longitudinal clinical assessments for Parkinson's disease is time-consuming and often depends on speciali...
arXiv:2605.20292v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Numerical time-series models effectively process irregular electronic health record (EHR) trajectories, but do not expose which temporal patterns s...
arXiv:2606. 19183v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) can make clinical decision support more accessible by interpreting free-text documentation, but their direct use as diagnostic engines is limited by sensitivity to prompts, information order, and plausible but incorrect outputs.
arXiv:2608. 12138v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: General-purpose large language models (LLMs) have recently been reported to match or exceed specialized clinical AI tools on medical benchmarks, but such comparisons draw on a narrow set of systems and on benchmarks developed largely in high-income settings.
arXiv:2604. 04593v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) grounds large language models in external medical knowledge, yet standard retrievers frequently surface hard negatives that are semantically close to the query but describe clinically distinct conditions.
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on sequential emergency department triage, where acuity labels are predicted from progressively longer nurse‑patient conversations. Six LLMs were tested at five checkpoints on simulated and physician‑authored dialogues, showing a decline from moderate‑to‑substantial agreement on full records to only fair‑to‑moderate agreement at each checkpoint. The models consistently anchor on chief complaint exchanges and fail to integrate later evidence, yielding low agreement with clinicians (QWK 0.295 vs. 0.887‑0.929) and concentrating predictions on ESI‑2 and ESI‑3. whyItMatters":"The findings reveal that LLMs, despite strong offline performance, cannot reliably handle the sequential nature of real‑time triage, highlighting a critical gap for safe deployment in emergency settings."