Clinical coding agents repeatedly encounter the same failure modes, including unsupported codes, missed documented conditions, specificity errors, and procedure-coding convention mismatches. We introduce Learn-Then-Act, an inference-time adaptation framework that converts errors from a small labeled LEARN batch into a structured Mistake Knowledge Database (MistakeKDB). False-negative lessons are routed to a recall-oriented Coder, while false-positive lessons are routed to a precision-oriented Judge. We instantiate the framework in LearnActCoder, a Coder-Judge clinical coding pipeline with lookup-table grounding where available. On 150 matched MIMIC-III notes, structured MistakeKDB improves CPT F1 by 5.9 percentage points, while raw-example and reflection-style memories remain near the no-memory baseline; the ICD-9 improvement is not significant. On a matched MIMIC-IV cohort, memory shifts ICD-10 coding toward higher precision at a recall cost, leaving F1 statistically unchanged. Applying the same memory to 1,000 held-out MIMIC-III notes maintains a stable ICD operating point, providing scale/stability evidence. Overall, the results are consistent with structured, feedback-derived error memory being useful for adapting clinical coding behavior across cases without weight updates or changes to the underlying workflow. Absolute CPT/HCPCS performance remains low, and the system is evaluated retrospectively rather than in clinical deployment.
In automated clinical coding, where the label space spans tens of thousands of diagnosis and procedure codes, models are currently evaluated against a single gold annotation, treating any deviation as error. But we find when two teams code the same 110 ACI-Bench encounters, they agree on only 73% of codes (Jaccard similarity) for the same note; even after an independent clinical audit removes erroneous codes, agreement rises only to 77%. Is that gap error or something systematic? We model the systematic component as coding style ψ, a coder- or site-specific policy over what to code and how much to document, and recast coding as p(code∣note,ψ), estimating ψ with a 10-dimension rubric. If style were noise, conditioning on it would do nothing. Instead, across five datasets a model conditioned with a data-matching style raises ICD F1 by up to 26 points and an extreme mismatched one lowers it by up to 21. Four prompt based coding methods spanning 39-49 F1 converge to 52-56 once style is supplied (All p<0.05). Much of what single-gold evaluation charges to model error is recoverable, unmodeled style.
Clinical coding maps clinical documentation to standardized medical codes, an essential yet time-consuming administrative task that could benefit from automation. Current models on ICD coding are typically optimized for codes from a specific ICD version. However, in reality, ICD systems evolve continuously, and different versions are adopted across time periods and regions. Moreover, ICD coding suffers from the long-tail problem, and rare code performance can be a bottleneck for developing implementable models. We examine whether it is viable to train version-independent models by combining data annotated in different ICD versions, which may help address these challenges. We add ICD-9 data to the training of a modified label-wise attention model for ICD-10 prediction, and find that despite the version mismatch, adding ICD-9 yields a 27% increase in micro F1 for 18K rare ICD codes compared to training on ICD-10 alone. On 8K frequent ICD-10 codes, the multi-version training also substantially improves macro metrics, with far fewer model parameters.
Automated International Classification of Diseases (ICD) coding is a core medical-coding task for billing, epidemiology, and clinical decision support. Generative large language models (LLMs) are often reported as weak medical coders, but this finding mainly comes from inference-time settings such as prompting, retrieval, reranking, or tool use, leaving the role of task-specific post-training underexplored. We present a controlled empirical study of post-training for generative ICD coding, comparing discriminative baselines with LLM coders across prompting, supervised fine-tuning, and reinforcement learning under a common protocol and metric set. To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate RL-based post-training for generative LLM coders in ICD coding. We further introduce PHI, a diagnostic curriculum that extends GRPO to refine missed-code cases. Our results show that prompting-only evaluation substantially underestimates the potential of LLMs for ICD coding. SFT provides the main capability jump, GRPO further improves code-set prediction beyond SFT, and PHI provides targeted gains on macro-level performance. These findings suggest that the main bottleneck is not the generative formulation alone, but how the model is adapted and optimized for full-taxonomy recall. We release our code, data splits, and checkpoints at https://github.com/AlexandreWANG915/LLM4ICD.