arXiv AI
Jul 21

Retrieval-Augmented Interpretable Learning: Towards Task-Specific Zero-Shot Models in Healthcare

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.

By Sazan Mahbub, Caleb Ellington, Zhiyuan Li, Yixin Yang, Souvik Kundu, Ben Lengerich, Eric P. Xing
arXiv Machine Learning
Jun 2

OncoReason: Structuring Clinical Reasoning in LLMs for Robust and Interpretable Survival Prediction

arXiv:2510. 17532v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Predicting cancer treatment outcomes requires models that are both accurate and interpretable, particularly in the presence of heterogeneous clinical data.

By Raghu Vamshi Hemadri, Geetha Krishna Guruju, Kristi Topollai, Anna Ewa Choromanska
arXiv AI
Jul 24

A Knowledge-Injection Framework for Zero-Shot Adaptation of LLMs to Delirium Prediction

arXiv:2607. 20453v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models show promise for clinical prediction, but zero-shot performance on specialized tasks is limited by incomplete domain knowledge, especially for smaller locally deployable models.

By Jessica Sena, Shesadree Priyadarshani, Miguel Contreras, Bharat Gandhi, Scott Siegel, Subhash Nerella, Parisa Rashidi
arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 7

Cite What You Explore: Budget-Aware LLM Reasoning over Medical KGs with Verifiable Evidence

The paper introduces BAR, a Budget‑Aware LLM Reasoning framework that enhances post‑discharge risk prediction by integrating external medical knowledge graphs (KGs). BAR refines KGs into disease‑specific evidence graphs with support scores and provenance, then uses an LLM to plan, navigate, and verify evidence within a patient‑specific budget. Experiments on MIMIC‑III and MIMIC‑IV across eight diseases show BAR improves AUPRC by 3.4 points, raises citation precision from 59.8% to 77.9%, and uses only 62‑65% of the allotted budget.

By Chen Chen, Dongjie Wang, Mei Liu, Zijun Yao