arXiv:2607. 24371v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Healthcare interoperability requires AI systems to produce structured outputs conforming to standardized schemas including ICD-10 for diagnostic coding, CPT for procedure billing, and HL7 FHIR for data exchange.
arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.
The study evaluates whether large language models (LLMs) with in‑context learning can better identify institution‑specific protected health information (PHI) in electronic health records than existing de‑identification systems. Using 100 pediatric oncology notes from Texas Children’s Hospital, eight LLMs were compared to two purpose‑built systems and pattern‑based baselines under three progressively specific prompts. The best LLM achieved an F1 score of 0.918, recovering 79% of previously missed PHI categories and reaching a recall of 0.981 after iterative prompt refinement, demonstrating that calibrated single‑pass prompting can close the institutional PHI gap while balancing precision and recall.
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:2608. 07796v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably.
arXiv:2601. 17642v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Safety alignment in Large Language Models is critical for healthcare; however, reliance on binary refusal boundaries often results in over-refusal of benign queries or unsafe compliance with harmful ones.
arXiv:2606. 00027v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions common in clinical practice.
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:2606. 29876v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Modern large language models (LLMs) reach 60-70% diagnostic accuracy on complex clinical case benchmarks, but accuracy alone cannot distinguish stable clinically-grounded reasoning from pattern matching.
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...
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."
The study evaluates a standalone large language model (LLM) versus a four‑step agentic pipeline for generating explanations of ICU mortality predictions on the eICU Demo dataset. XGBoost achieved an AUROC of 0.855 and an AUPRC of 0.332. In a 38‑case explanation subset, the standalone LLM produced one explanation with outcome leakage, while the agentic pipeline produced none; among 14 overlapping SHAP cases, the standalone LLM had higher SHAP alignment and direction consistency, whereas the agentic pipeline showed better guideline grounding, value specificity, and plausibility.
LogiMed‑RoB is a new benchmark that tests large language models (LLMs) on hierarchical logical consistency in medical risk‑of‑bias assessments, using 860 randomized controlled trials and 14,820 queries based on Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 expert logic. The benchmark evaluates models across four dimensions—Atomic Consistency, Domain Consistency, Aggregation Consistency, and Evidential Faithfulness—revealing a catastrophic error‑compounding effect where high atomic accuracy does not translate to end‑to‑end consistency. Experiments on ten state‑of‑the‑art LLMs show that even top models can fail to deduce correct outcomes in a significant portion of cases, highlighting a gap between evidence retrieval and reasoning. whyItMatters":"The study shows that high outcome accuracy can mask critical reasoning flaws, emphasizing the need for white‑box logical verification before deploying LLMs in clinical settings."