Systematic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Post-Discharge Clinical Action Extraction

Large language models are increasingly used for structured extraction from clinical free-text notes, but the sensitivity of their output to upstream configuration choices is less understood than their accuracy on fixed benchmarks. This work measures that sensitivity without human-annotated ground truth, by holding the extraction task fixed and varying one choice at a time. The fixed schema comprises 17 clinical documentation flags on a three-way yes/no/not_documented value set and a 47-tag vocabulary for the primary admission reason. Three prompt variants expressing this schema were each run at two model sizes on MIMIC-IV v3.1 discharge summaries. Cross-prompt agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa on ICD-stratified subsets. A paired same-note comparison isolated the effect of model choice, and a post-hoc collapse of the three-way flags to binary tested the schema's contribution to disagreement. On the three-way flags, the two models reach the same pooled cross-prompt agreement (median kappa 0.69 and 0.68); the larger model raises agreement on some fields and lowers it on others, a redistribution rather than the absence of an effect. Collapsing the schema to binary dissolves most of the cross-prompt disagreement, locating it on the absence-versus-silence distinction rather than on whether the finding is present. On the multi-class admission categorization, changing the model reassigns the dominant tag on close to half of all notes while changing the prompt phrasing reassigns it on roughly one in eight, and the larger model places far less mass on residual catch-all categories (44% to 26%). These patterns indicate a schema-imposed source of disagreement concentrated on the absence-versus-silence axis and a dominance of model over prompt phrasing on multi-class categorization, identified by a reusable methodology for auditing extraction reproducibility on a population-scale deployment.

Online patient inquiries are often informal, incomplete, and written before professional assessment, yet they must still be routed to an appropriate level of clinical follow-up. We study this as a four-class actionable triage task -- self-care, schedule-visit, urgent-clinician-review, or emergency-referral, and ask whether prompted large language models (LLMs) can support such routing under low-resource labeling conditions. Using the public HealthCareMagic-100K corpus, we construct a 300-example human calibrated gold evaluation set, a 700-example auto-labeled silver training set, and a 40-example few-shot pool. We compare Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency (TF-IDF) and Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers for Biomedical Text Mining (BioBERT) baselines train on silver labels against six prompted LLMs under 0-shot, 4-shot, and 12-shot conditions respectively. Accordingly, we evaluate with macro-$F_1$ alongside safety-aware metrics, including emergency-recall, under-triage rate, and severe under-triage rate. The strongest LLM (Claude Haiku 4.5, 12-shot) reaches macro-$F_1$ 0.475, exceeding the best supervised baseline (BioBERT, 0.378) on point estimate, with overlapping confidence intervals. Few-shot prompting and two-model agreement help in label-dependent ways: self-care agreement is reliable, urgent-clinician-review is not. We conclude that LLMs can support triage prioritization and selective human review, but not autonomous deployment.

Large Language Models (LLMs) show great potential as clinical agents, yet existing benchmarks reduce clinical workflows to static predictions or unconstrained Markov Decision Processes (MDPs) with coarse action sets. To address this, we introduce GPAgentBench-2K, the first Constrained MDP (CMDP) LLM-agent benchmark for primary-care clinical decision-making, constructed from expert-validated records of real-world GP encounters. Our environment models a full spectrum of six foundational clinical actions, imposes a topological workflow prior over the action space, and operationalizes safety-informed abstention as a first-class outcome. Evaluating 16 state-of-the-art LLMs reveals a significant performance degradation as the action space scales. Crucially, we uncover a clinical quality-safety gap: even frontier models with the highest diagnosis accuracy violate safety constraints in over half of high-risk cases. Finally, we establish a reference point using Constrained Group Relative Policy Optimization (C-GRPO), and show that while explicitly modeling constraints improves performance over unconstrained RL methods, it remains far from clinically acceptable safety.