arXiv:2607. 22574v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Evidence-based clinical decision making requires specialists to identify, evaluate and synthesize relevant scientific literature.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.
The article proposes a framework called quantitative evidence mining to transform biomedical findings into structured, context-rich evidence units. It outlines core elements such as claim, measured entity, value, comparator, population, conditions, temporal context, uncertainty, provenance, validation, and expert review. The authors present an eight-stage reference architecture and emphasize that plausibility should remain multidimensional rather than collapsed into a single truth label, linking extraction to evidence synthesis for applications like clinical trials, biomarker research, and knowledge-graph construction.
arXiv:2606. 05436v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care.
arXiv:2610.01938v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Exam-style accuracy does not establish whether large language models (LLMs) reason well over clinical records. We define clinical reasoning as integr...
arXiv:2608.30393v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Biomedical artificial intelligence (AI) systems increasingly extract, organize, and reuse scientific claims from literature, clinical trials, and regul...
arXiv:2607. 19201v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Clinical NLP evaluation remains dominated by multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which scores only final-answer accuracy and cannot detect when a model reaches the correct diagnosis while grounding it in irrelevant, absent, or contradictory evidence.
The paper introduces CLEAR, an agentic framework designed to improve the reliability of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts by adjudicating evidence from multiple sources. CLEAR generates candidate answers from three distinct pathways—parametric knowledge, locally curated corpora, and dynamically retrieved evidence—and then uses an aggregation verifier to evaluate agreement and conflict among these sources. An adjudication module decides whether to preserve or revise conclusions, employing override-guard and challenge-audit mechanisms, and initiates targeted follow-up searches when conflicts remain unresolved.