Organizations: Dept. Lenguajes y Sistemas Informáticos, ETSI Informática, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED) · Dept. Informática y Estadística, ETSI Informática, Universidad Rey Juan Carlos (URJC)
Standard clinical Natural Language Processing (NLP) benchmarks often yield inflated metrics by forcing deterministic classification on ambiguous instances, thereby obscuring the clinical risks of overconfident predictions. To bridge this gap, we propose a risk-aware hybrid selective classification framework, evaluated on early Human Immunodeficiency Virus suspicion identification in Spanish clinical notes. Our dual-verification approach explicitly decouples aleatoric uncertainty through Mondrian conformal prediction and epistemic uncertainty using a Multi-Centroid Mahalanobis Distance veto. Empirical evaluations reveal that standard uncertainty metrics and baseline classifiers are structurally insufficient for safe medical triage, suffering severe coverage collapse when forced to operate under strict reliability constraints. In contrast, by demanding that clinical narratives pass both probabilistic and geometric safeguards, the proposed framework successfully isolates a highly trustworthy operational domain.
Clinical language models (LMs) are increasingly applied to support clinical risk prediction from free-text notes, yet their uncertainty estimates often remain poorly calibrated and clinically unreliable. In this work, we propose Clinical Uncertainty Risk Alignment (CURA), a framework that aligns clinical LM-based risk estimates and uncertainty with both individual error likelihoods and cohort-level ambiguities. CURA first fine-tunes domain-specific clinical LMs to obtain task-adapted patient embeddings, and then performs uncertainty fine-tuning of a multi-head classifier using a bi-level uncertainty objective. Specifically, an individual-level calibration term aligns predictive uncertainty with each patient's likelihood of error, while a cohort-aware regularizer pulls risk estimates toward event rates in their local neighborhoods in the embedding space and places extra weight on ambiguous cohorts near the decision boundary. We further show that this cohort-aware term can be interpreted as a cross-entropy loss with neighborhood-informed soft labels, providing a label-smoothing view of our method. Extensive experiments on MIMIC-IV clinical risk prediction tasks across various clinical LMs show that CURA consistently improves calibration metrics without substantially compromising discrimination. Further analysis illustrates that CURA reduces overconfident false reassurance and yields more trustworthy uncertainty estimates for downstream clinical decision support.
Clinical early warning systems built on electronic health records, in which clinical observations are recorded as irregularly sampled medical time series (ISMTS), must deliver both calibrated risk scores for patient triage and interpretable rationales that clinicians can verify. Large Language Models (LLMs) have been explored for this task, yet they collapse graded clinical risk into overconfident binary predictions. This risk polarization undermines both calibration and cross-patient comparability. To address this, we propose TRIAGE, a framework that trains an LLM to generate dialectical reasoning over competing clinical outcomes by eliciting outcome-specific rationales. This dialectical formulation mitigates risk polarization, enabling a single LLM to yield continuous risk scores grounded in explicit clinical reasoning. Evaluated on three ISMTS benchmarks, TRIAGE achieves an average AUPRC improvement of 3.3% and reduces calibration error by 81% compared to the competitive baselines. An LLM-as-a-judge assessment further shows that our rationales surpass post-hoc explanations from the baseline by 20% in clinical reasoning quality. The source code is available at https://github.com/HyeongWon-Jang/TRIAGE .
Emergency triage requires reliable decisions within a short time period. However, the available electronic health record (EHR) data, including structured data and clinical text, are often incomplete, unreliable, and inconsistent. This makes machine learning (ML)-based triage prediction more challenging, as existing ML models typically rely on complete and reliable EHR data to accurately predict patients' acuity levels. To address this, we propose confidence- and reliability-aware selective triage (CRS-Triage) to predict patients' acuity levels with a confidence score. By comparing the confidence score with a predefined threshold, CRS-Triage can selectively determine whether the model should make the decision or defer the case. Specifically, CRS-Triage separately evaluates the reliability of structured data and clinical text and then jointly considers the consistency between the two modalities to estimate the confidence of each prediction. Moreover, to reduce the risk of missing high-acuity patients, namely under-triage, CRS-Triage prefers to assign patients slightly higher acuity levels, namely over-triage, by penalizing under-triage errors. Experiments on the MIMIC-IV-ED dataset show that CRS-Triage achieves strong predictive performance. It also provides a better risk-coverage trade-off and remains reliable when the available EHR data are incomplete, degraded, or inconsistent across modalities.