arXiv Machine Learning By Miguel Fernandez-de-Retana, Unai Zulaika, Ruben Sanchez-Corcuera, Aritz Bilbao-Jayo, Aitor Almeida

Would an LLM Match into a Residency? Uncertainty, Reasoning and Image Use of Open Language Models on the Spanish MIR Examination

Read the original on arXiv Machine Learning →

The study evaluates four open language models (8–27 billion parameters) on the Spanish MIR residency exam, covering 1,552 questions across eight editions. The largest models could rank within the top 600–3,000 candidates and had 41–43 specialties still open, yet abstaining never improved performance because even low‑confidence answers were more often correct than the 25% break‑even threshold. Medical fine‑tuning lowered overconfidence but also reduced accuracy, did not improve the correlation between confidence and correctness, and removing or swapping the provided images did not affect accuracy.

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 Machine Learning.

arXiv Machine Learning
Oct 23

The Value of System 1 Models in Medicine

The study evaluates four zero‑shot System 1 models on 86 public clinical tasks across 14 domains and 20 languages, measuring performance via AUROC. The best models achieved high AUROC scores—0.94 for medical knowledge, 0.93 for text understanding, 0.83 for clinical judgement from text, 0.89 for image perception, 0.84 for 2D image findings, and 0.69 for volumetric findings—yet performed worse on imaging tasks and varied significantly with language. System 1 models were fast (0.34–0.44 s) and energy‑efficient (24–81 J) but lagged behind clinicians on triage and were outperformed by generative models in some metrics.

By Xiufeng Yang, Konstantinos Vrettos, Zeineb Ben Chaaben, Fabian Drexel, Jannik L\"ubberstedt, Johannes Moll, Anirudh Narayanan, Frederike Stumpf, Cosmin I. Bercea, Jiawen Wang, Evangelia E. Vassalou, Krischan Braitsch, Sebastian Ziegelmayer, Markus Graf, Marcus R. Makowski, Lisa Adams, Nassir Navab, Michail E. Klontzas, Keno Bressem
arXiv Computation and Language
Oct 7

Evaluating Large Language Model Raters for German Open-Response Clinical Questions: A Physician-Annotated Benchmark Study of Agreement, Evaluator Bias, and Abstention

The study introduces MedQADE, a German open‑response clinical benchmark with 3,800 question‑answer pairs and physician reference annotations. It evaluates large language models (LLMs) as judges, finding that while some LLMs (e.g., Gemini 3 Flash) achieve physician‑level agreement on correctness, they exhibit self‑bias and low abstention rates. Physicians showed moderate agreement on correctness but limited agreement on difficulty, and their abstention increased with perceived difficulty.

By William Philipp, Finn Fassbender, Daniel Fister, Thorsten Langer, Martje G. Pauly, Rebecca Herzog, Markus A. Hobert, Theresa Paulus, Alexander Baumann, Chi Wang Ip, Lukas L. Goede, Johanna Reimer, Sebastian L\"ons, Ronald B\"ock, Sebastian Fudickar
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