arXiv Computation and Language
Aug 24

An ambiguity taxonomy for evaluating large language model performance on clinical registry abstraction: a multi-site prospective study

The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on unprocessed electronic medical record data for clinical registry abstraction, focusing on the American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Data Registry. In a pilot at one academic center, the LLM identified candidate data sources for each registry question, which abstractors used to define question‑specific document sets. In a subsequent validation at a second center, the LLM answered 157 registry questions with an overall mean accuracy of 91.5%, but accuracy dropped from 96% for simple medication or event flag questions to 62% for event timing questions, reflecting increasing ambiguity and required clinical reasoning.

By James Matheson, Betsy Castillo, Andrew Y. Shin, David Scheinker
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 9

Clinician use of language models diverges from how the models are evaluated

Large language model assistants are being deployed to clinicians, but their readiness is judged mainly by benchmark scores that are based on examination questions or curated cases. This study analyzed 127,833 queries from 6,342 healthcare professionals across 35 specialties, finding that most requests were for documentation, administration, and knowledge retrieval, with a significant portion of queries unanswerable. When compared to 58 public benchmarks, the median benchmark lacked documentation requests and only shared 31% of the real task mix, indicating that current benchmarks poorly reflect actual clinical use.

By Krithik Vishwanath, Haitong Lin, Anton Alyakin, Jin Vivian Lee, D. Brock Hewitt, Jie J. Yao, William Robert Small, Hammad A. Khan, Cordelia Orillac, Aakaash Varma, Brandon Ye, Daniel Alexander Alber, Gustavo Stolovitzky, Batia Wiesenfeld, Oded Nov, Wei Wu, Kang Zhang, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs, Tim Requarth, Eric Karl Oermann, The International Digital Twin Consortium in Healthcare, Medicine
arXiv AI
Jun 15

Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?

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.

By Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara, Ziyaad Dangor, Michael Cameron Gramanie, Ismail Kalla, Shabir A. Madhi, Kajal Morar, Marlvin T. Ncube, Haroon Saloojee, Bruce A. Bassett
arXiv AI
Oct 5

Answering clinicians' questions over trial evidence tables with verifiable, feedback-driven language models

FD‑SCoPE is a language‑model framework that answers clinicians’ questions about systematic review evidence tables, exposing the underlying query, selected trials, and derivation rule for each answer. It handles both directly recorded attributes and derived attributes, achieving high accuracy on an oncology evidence table of 159 immune‑checkpoint inhibitor trials. After incorporating expert corrections, its performance on unseen questions improved from 77.9% to 84.9% F1.

By Manan Roy Choudhury, Suparno Roy Chowdhury, Swastik Sahoo, Muhammad Ali Khan, Kaneez Zahra Rubab Khakwani, Mohamad Bassam Sonbol, Irbaz Bin Riaz, Vivek Gupta
arXiv AI
Aug 3

Reasoning in Real World Clinical Care: Why Large Language Models Are Not Yet Safe for Autonomous Clinical Decision Support

arXiv:2607. 28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning.

By Shayndhan Sivanathan, Shravan Nageswaran, Mehdi Zadem, Ryaan Sultan, Nicolas von Mallinckrodt, Max Solovyev, Alexey Matyushkin, Sumon Sadhu, Gabriele C DeLuca, Sanjeeva Jeyaretna, James Hillis, Manoj Ramachandran, Prakash Jayakumar