Incentivizing Tool-Use Reinforcement Learning for Post-Arrival Emergency Care Prediction
Organizations: Stevens Institute of Technology · University of Michigan, Ann Arbor · National Institutes of Health · Yale University
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) can reason over both structured measurements and free-text records, which makes them attractive for emergency department (ED) prediction. However, most existing LLMs still fall short of conventional ML methods like trees on EHR-based prediction tasks. Our controlled analysis traces this gap to two weaknesses: LLMs do not select informative features, and they misjudge what numerical values imply for risk even when given the right features. We propose TIR-EC, a tool-integrated reinforcement learning framework that addresses both. TIR-EC exposes EHR feature groups as tools the LLM can call. It trains the LLM with rewards from a gradient-boosted tree teacher, which provides a reference set of informative tools and a graded risk target. TIR-EC also distills task-specific clinical skills into the model weights through a reverse curriculum that gradually removes the skills from the prompt during RL process. Evaluation on three clinical prediction tasks shows that our 4B agent achieves the highest macro F1 of all compared models, outperforms conventional ML baselines, and is competitive with much larger frontier LLMs. Further analysis shows that TIR-EC selects more useful evidence with fewer tool calls and combines measurements more effectively.
Figures & tables
| Disposition | Decompensation | Revisit | Macro avg. | |||||||||||||||
| Model | P | R | F1 | AUPRC | AUROC | P | R | F1 | AUPRC | AUROC | P | R | F1 | AUPRC | AUROC | F1 | AUPRC | AUROC |
| ML & DL Baselines | ||||||||||||||||||
| XGBoost | 62.3 | 84.3 | 71.6 | 75.9 | 80.2 | 27.9 | 41.7 | 33.5 | 26.9 | 65.2 | 30.3 | 60.6 | 40.4 | 26.6 | 60.9 | 48.5 | 43.1 | 68.8 |
| BEHRT | 70.2 | 76.7 | 73.3 | 82.3 | 82.8 | 21.0 | 61.1 | 31.2 | 28.8 | 65.8 | 24.3 | 55.1 | 33.8 | 23.7 | 57.5 | 46.1 | 44.9 | 68.7 |
| MC-BEC | 70.5 | 77.5 | 73.8 | 82.6 | 83.0 | 20.4 | 55.6 | 29.9 | 33.0 | 64.0 | 22.3 | 51.0 | 31.1 | 27.8 | 59.3 | 44.9 | 47.8 | 68.8 |
| TransformerEHR | 66.1 | 68.3 | 67.2 | 68.1 | 72.2 | 24.3 | 25.0 | 24.7 | 19.6 | 53.6 | 21.4 | 63.3 | 32.0 | 21.2 | 52.6 | 41.3 | 36.3 | 59.5 |
| Case 1: Risk assessment beyond isolated abnormalities | |
| Patient | Woman aged 69; ankle fracture. Predict admission at 2 h. Stable vital signs; Hb 11.4 g/dL (low); diagnostic testing and pain relief. |
| GPT Sol | “The fracture and low hemoglobin could raise concern in an older patient. Weighting these findings above stable vital signs and supportive treatment could favor admission.” <answer>0.85</answer> |
| Our Model | “While the patient has a fracture, the lab values are mostly normal […] The orders are focused on diagnostic and supportive care rather than admission-level interventions.” <answer>0.29</answer> |
| Outcome | Discharged home. |
| Case 2: More efficient retrieval of task-relevant evidence | |
| Patient | Man aged 46; motor vehicle crash. Stable HR, oxygenation, and MAP; predict deterioration in 60 min. |
Clinical Outcome Prediction
Clinical outcome prediction uses patient records, imaging, signals, and biomarkers to estimate risks, disease trajectories, treatment response, and survival.
See all 265 papers