The study examined how clinicians and GPT‑4 evaluate emergency department revisit pairs to determine if further assessment is needed. GPT‑4 over‑identified nearly all pairs as requiring follow‑up, while clinicians used clinical gravity and differential diagnosis factors. An algorithm using a knowledge graph populated by an LLM achieved high positive predictive value for identifying pairs that clinicians deemed warranting review.
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.
arXiv:2609.09356v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: At Noora Health, our nurses answer more than 50,000 medical queries per month on our WhatsApp-based service that provides caregivers with on-demand sup...
arXiv:2606. 03198v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical AI evaluation increasingly delegates scoring to large language models (LLMs) acting as AI raters, yet their scoring behavior across evaluation conditions has not been quantitatively characterized.
arXiv:2607. 08038v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Diagnostic error is a major threat to patient safety, yet current large language model (LLM) systems often treat diagnosis as a one-shot prediction task, lacking safeguards against missed high-risk alternatives or rigorous verification of their reasoning.
arXiv:2607. 18999v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Multi-turn medical consultation agents must decide what to ask, adapt to patient responses, and determine when the collected evidence is sufficient.
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.
arXiv:2606. 17474v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for use in clinical consultation tasks, yet most medical evaluations remain static, single-turn, or narrowly outcome-based, limiting their ability to reflect the sequential, uncertain, and interactive nature of real-world care.
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."
arXiv:2512. 01241v4 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized.
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
arXiv:2604. 14892v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators.
arXiv:2607. 28788v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical diagnosis at hospital admission must be made rapidly from limited, incomplete evidence.