Text-based telemedicine increasingly relies on lightweight patient feedback, however, such feedback primarily reflects perceived communication quality rather than medical accuracy. We introduce an LM-guided counterfactual recommendation pipeline that discovers and refines interpretable communication features such as tone, personalization, actionability and completeness in addressing patient concerns, without interfering with the medical content. These features are used together with patient-doctor interaction metadata to estimate positive feedback. At inference time, the system searches over low-cost ordinal feature changes and recommends minimal communication changes predicted to increase the probability of positive feedback, while independent auditor models test whether these gains generalize beyond the selection model. Across interactions, recommendations yield a mean +6.41% gain in predicted positive feedback probability under independent auditors, and are non-negative for 93.31% of recommendations. These results suggest that small, interpretable communication changes can capture most predicted gains while preserving the doctor's control over medical reasoning and final wording.
Patient-facing medical LLMs and agents increasingly answer symptom questions before clinician contact, where the key safety question is what action the user should take next. We introduce CARE-Bench, a source-grounded benchmark that evaluates sequential patient-facing triage as a four-label per-turn current-action task. CARE-Bench contains 500 cases and 1,059 evaluated patient-disclosure prefixes reconstructed from medical dialogue, consultation, and follow-up-question sources. We evaluate 11 models on 269 held-out rounds under unprompted and minimally prompted open-ended protocols, using a fixed GPT-5.5 mapper to code each response into the four-label action space. Unprompted macro-F1 remains low, ranging from 31.2 to 50.4. Prompting improves 10 of 11 models, with prompted macro-F1 ranging from 46.9 to 63.4, but substantial threshold errors remain. Prompted models often recommend care before needed clarification is obtained; when the correct action was to ask for more information, only 33.5% of prompted outputs preserved the step. The persistence of these errors after prompting suggests that patient-facing triage is not a simple prompting problem and supports explicit evaluation of action timing before deployment.
Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been especially effective in mathematics and coding, where answers can be checked automatically. Many open-ended medical questions lack comparably cheap outcome verifiers: responses may be partly correct, incomplete, or contain clinically consequential errors. Rubrics written or validated by physicians offer strong clinical grounding, but involving experts in every instance is costly. Model-generated rubrics make this supervision scalable. We introduce ConRub-Med to preserve useful distinctions as rubric feedback moves from construction to policy optimization. For each prompt, three heterogeneous language models propose atomic criteria independently; a separate model reviews them, retaining only criteria with semantic support from all three generators. Three-State scoring distinguishes correct coverage, missing information, and incorrect claims. Errors receive negative rather than zero credit. When every response in a complete Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) group receives the same final reward, a pairwise judge provides sequence advantages only if both candidate orders agree, without changing the scalar rewards. Groups without ties use vanilla GRPO. In a blinded study matched by question, two medical experts rate panels from the full pipeline as more clinically relevant than panels produced by one generator. Across the evaluated open models, ConRub-Med ranks first on six of nine benchmarks and achieves the highest medical and generalization averages. Using the resulting rubric dataset of 5,166 prompts, it scores 38.98±1.04 (mean ± SD) on HealthBench-Hard, compared with InfiMed-ORBIT's 33.60 with 8,000 samples and 37.30 with 28,000.
Faithful reasoning is essential in medicine, where clinical decisions require transparent justification grounded in reliable evidence. Current medical LLMs either lack active access to evidence or use retrieved evidence without supervising how it should be appraised and applied during reasoning. To address this, we formalize evidence-based medicine principles as process-level criteria and introduce FaithMed, a framework that combines clinician-designed, automatically refined rubrics with reinforcement learning using step-level process reward assignment and advantage grouping. Across seven medical benchmarks, FaithMed improves over agentic-search baselines (+9% on average) and outcome-only RL (+5.8%), while raising average evidence-based medicine rubric scores over agentic-search Qwen3 baselines (+15.5%). This work demonstrates that explicit step-level supervision can improve both task success and the faithfulness of the reasoning process. Code is available at https://github.com/cxcscmu/FaithMed.