MADE: A Living Benchmark for Multi-Label Text Classification with Uncertainty Quantification of Medical Device Adverse Events

Clinical language models often assign high confidence to incorrect predictions, particularly in high-severity and out-of-distribution cases. We present MedBayes-Lite, a retraining-free uncertainty governance layer for transformer-based clinical predictors. It combines Monte Carlo dropout, predictive calibration, and confidence-guided abstention to defer low-confidence predictions for human review, adding no trainable parameters. Evaluated on MedMCQA and MedQA-USMLE, MedBayes-Lite reduces expected calibration error by 0.23 to 0.33 and drives harmful overconfident errors (confident, incorrect, high-severity predictions) toward zero. Under domain shift from MedMCQA to MedQA-USMLE, it reduces confident high-severity errors from about 21% to near zero while roughly halving calibration drift. We also introduce the Clinical Uncertainty Score (CUS), which strongly correlates with harmful overconfidence (r approximately 0.88). Although the framework does not improve risk-coverage ranking, and temperature scaling or deep ensembles may provide advantages in calibration cost or risk ranking, MedBayes-Lite offers a practical calibration-and-abstention layer that reduces confident high-severity errors in clinical question-answering benchmarks.

We introduce AcuityBench, a benchmark for evaluating whether language models identify the appropriate urgency of care from user medical presentations. Existing health benchmarks emphasize medical question answering, broad health interactions, or narrow workflow-specific triage tasks, but they do not offer a unified evaluation of acuity identification across these settings. AcuityBench addresses this gap by harmonizing five public datasets spanning user conversations, online forum posts, clinical vignettes, and patient portal messages under a shared four-level acuity framework ranging from home monitoring to immediate emergency care. The benchmark contains 914 cases, including 697 consensus cases for standard accuracy evaluation and 217 physician-confirmed ambiguous cases for uncertainty-aware evaluation. It supports two complementary task formats: explicit four-way classification in a QA setting, and free-form conversational responses evaluated with a rubric-based judge anchored to the same framework. Across 12 frontier proprietary and open-weight models, we find substantial variation in clear-case acuity accuracy and error direction. Comparing task formats reveals a systematic tradeoff: conversational responses reduce over-triage but increase under-triage relative to QA, especially in higher-acuity cases. In ambiguous cases, no model closely matches the distribution of physician judgments, and model predictions are more concentrated than expert clinical uncertainty. We also compare expert and model adjudication on a subset of maximally ambiguous cases, using those cases to examine the role of clinical uncertainty in label disagreement. Together, these results position acuity identification as a distinct safety-critical capability and show that AcuityBench enables systematic comparison and stress-testing of how well models guide users to the right level of care in real-world health use.

Language models trained for clinical disease inference are trained on patient data, which may include sensitive and private information, and data owners may request the removal of their data from a trained model due to privacy or copyright concerns. However, exactly unlearning patient-specific data is intractable, and retraining with minor data removal is resource-intensive. While there exists several machine unlearning methods that can be used, their utility is generally restricted to non-medical domains. Moreover, the existing benchmarks for evaluating such unlearning methods primarily utilize synthetically curated datasets, which are not truly representative of real-world systems. Hence, the effectiveness of these unlearning methods in the medical domain is largely unclear. To this end, we introduce REMEDI, an extensive benchmark for machine unlearning tailored to multi-label and multiclass clinical disease inference, where label correlations, longitudinal structure, and safety constraints make unlearning particularly challenging. Unlike the existing benchmarks, REMEDI considers: (1) a relevant application domain (medical), (2) comprehensive unlearning setups involving diverse sets of forget instances, (3) challenging unlearning scenarios including multi-label and multi-class classification tasks, and (4) evaluation metrics involving performance both in terms of utility and extent of unlearning achieved. REMEDI is developed using the MIMIC-III clinical database that contains comprehensive clinical data of patients. Experiments with existing unlearning methods indicate that there exists a trade-off between utility and unlearning performance. They are also largely unsuited to multi-label classification tasks. To facilitate reproducibility, we make our benchmark publicly available.