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.
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.
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: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.
arXiv:2608. 11238v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation improves the factuality of large language models by grounding responses in retrieved evidence, yet existing evaluation frameworks struggle to provide consistent, fine-grained diagnostics across the diverse spectrum of user queries, ranging from close-ended fact-seeking to open-ended explanatory requests.
arXiv:2606. 07929v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical practice based on benchmark accuracy that may fail to detect safety-relevant failure modes.
arXiv:2607. 17508v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: We introduce Retrieval-Augmented Interpretable Learning (RAIL), a probabilistic meta-learning framework for zero-shot generation of task-specific interpretable models that synthesizes coefficient-space structure from natural-language task descriptions and a memory of previously learned task-specific predictors.
arXiv:2601. 14590v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Counterfactual explanations (CFEs) provide human-centric interpretability by identifying the minimal, actionable changes required to alter a machine learning model's prediction.
arXiv:2606. 24200v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) in clinical settings increasingly requires multilingual retrieval against predominantly English evidence corpora.
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.