MedicalBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Toward Improved Medical Concept Extraction
Read the original on arXiv Computation and Language →The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
The Flow has not summarised this story yet — read it at arXiv Computation and Language.
arXiv:2607. 23368v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Vision-Language Models (VLMs) are demonstrating significant capabilities in medical tasks like radiology analysis, yet providing faithful and interpretable explanations remains a key consideration for their responsible deployment in clinical settings.
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:2607. 20462v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, stressing the need for reliable traceability of model-generated output with watermarking.
arXiv:2609.37788v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Rubrics support the structured evaluation of language models. We propose a rubric for assessing expressed clinical reasoning in model responses, draw...
arXiv:2610.18672v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Biomedical language models (LMs) provide strong representations for clinical tasks, but they often fail to capture the hierarchical structure among m...
The UIC-AIHealth4All system was presented for the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared task on grounded question answering from electronic health records. It participated in evidence identification, answer generation, and answer‑evidence alignment, using an answer‑first pipeline that generates candidate answers with cited note sentences before classifying the full evidence set. The system ranked third in evidence identification, ninth in answer generation, and fifth in answer‑evidence alignment, and a linguistic analysis showed its outputs were harder to read than clinician‑authored references, highlighting the need for readability optimization in clinical NLP.