ALLMTS: Automated LLM-based Medical Triage System

As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, it is critical to evaluate their reliability under realistic variation in clinical text. We study this question in clinical triage, comparing LLMs to practicing physicians under text perturbations that preserve the underlying clinical setting. We introduce a benchmark of over 6,000 clinical scenarios, 7,000 physician annotations, and 225,000 model responses. Using this benchmark, we make two key observations. First, LLMs are more likely than physicians to recommend unnecessary care at baseline, and this tendency increases under perturbed inputs. Further, we find that LLM recommendations are more sensitive to gender and tone perturbations than human recommendations. Together, these results demonstrate that LLMs can vary under clinically irrelevant textual changes, highlighting the need for deployment-oriented evaluations grounded in expert physician behavior.

At Noora Health, our nurses answer more than 50,000 medical queries per month on our WhatsApp-based service that provides caregivers with on-demand support. Their most time-critical task is emergency triage: deciding which queries need immediate in-person attention. To support them, we built a system that uses a large language model (LLM) to classify whether a message is an emergency and provide a rationale for interpretability. But the system was opaque: analyzing mistakes meant reading reasoning chains for each message, which is infeasible at our scale. Prompt changes meant re-running a full evaluation to prevent regressions, which was both costly and operationally challenging. Clinicians follow a decision tree to make this call, but it was never documented or passed to the model, which relied on a flat list of danger signs. To address these issues, we decomposed triage into two steps: an LLM extracts canonical symptoms and patient context from the query using a clinician-authored vocabulary, and a deterministic rule engine captures the scenarios that indicate an emergency. We show that the new system raised recall from 0.565 to 0.810 and F1 from 0.606 to 0.702, with structured rules driving most of the accuracy gains while the decomposition provides auditability: clinical experts can inspect each stage of the new system to see whether the query was mistranslated, symptoms were incorrectly extracted, patient context was wrongly inferred, or the necessary rules were missing. They can add new rules independently without causing regressions and avoid running costly evaluations. Since deployment, the new system has triaged 152,421 patient queries and flagged 28,535 (18.7%) as emergencies. The over-escalation rate has been 17.8%, without any increase in missed emergencies. Clinicians have also added 48 new rules since deployment, evidence of the faster correction loop we set out to build.

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.