ConfTriage: A Calibration-Aware LLM Triage Framework for Pulmonary Nodule Malignancy with Selective Specialist Deferral

A vision-language model can answer a question about a medical image fluently and confidently while barely using the image, leaning instead on language priors. In medicine this is the failure that matters most, because the answer looks trustworthy and is not, and the only protection is a confidence score reliable enough to tell the system when to abstain. We ask a deployment question rather than an accuracy one: how much imaging work a model can safely handle alone, and which confidence signal makes that possible. We evaluate seven confidence estimators across five open-weight LVLMs and three medical visual-question-answering datasets spanning broad clinical imaging, radiology, and pathology, with every probe trained only on natural images and applied without adaptation. Recast as bounded selective prediction (automate a case only when confidence clears a threshold, defer the rest), the comparison is cautionary. The standard metrics are poor guides: discrimination barely separates the methods, and the weak calibration of a cheap self-report is cheaply removed by off-domain temperature scaling without changing deployable yield. What distinguishes a usable estimator is the high-confidence region a clinician acts on: the weakest baselines are confidently wrong on 41 to 45 percent of their errors against 1 to 4 percent for the best probe, and no estimator is reliably best across domains or models. Safe handoff is governed at two levels: base-model competence sets a ceiling, so a well-calibrated score recovers roughly a third of radiology cases at a 20 percent error tolerance but almost none of pathology; the confidence layer then decides how much of that ceiling is reachable. The usable role today is calibrated triage, not autonomy: automate the cases a calibrated score marks safe, route the rest to a clinician. We release all outputs, correctness judgments, and confidence scores, with code.

Foundation models provide transferable CT representations, but predictions based directly on these embeddings are difficult to interpret. We developed concept bottleneck models that map two frozen CT foundation-model representations to eight radiologist-defined pulmonary-nodule attributes and predict malignancy from the estimated concepts and nodule size. The models included CT-FM, a whole-CT self-supervised encoder using a 96^3-voxel nodule-centered patch, and FMCIB, a nodule-focused contrastive encoder using a 50-mm crop. Eight ridge-regression concept heads were trained on 2,610 LIDC-IDRI nodules. Malignancy models were trained on LUNA25 and evaluated on a held-out internal test set and the external DLCS cohort. Concept fidelity was assessed using five-fold cross-validated R^2, and malignancy discrimination was assessed using AUROC with 95% confidence intervals estimated by patient-grouped bootstrap resampling. Concept fidelity was modest but higher for FMCIB than CT-FM for subtlety (R2, 0.24 vs. 0.11), spiculation (0.17 vs. 0.08), texture (0.17 vs. 0.07), and lobulation (0.15 vs. 0.05). Internally, the CT-FM and FMCIB concept+size models achieved AUROCs of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.80-0.92) and 0.86 (0.79-0.92), respectively. Externally, AUROCs were 0.72 (0.68-0.75) and 0.73 (0.70-0.76), compared with 0.73 for nodule size alone and 0.60 and 0.67 for the corresponding embedding only probes. Additive predictions could be decomposed into feature-level contributions and modified through controlled concept interventions. Concept bottlenecks provided transparent malignancy predictions with discrimination similar to nodule size alone, while differences in concept fidelity suggest that concept recovery depends on the underlying foundation-model representation.

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.