Clinical Decision-Making

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

17 papers in the last four weeks, up 325% on the four weeks before. 0.2% of all new papers.

Jul 13Week of Sep 28

Latest papers 78

Oct 3, 2026cs.AI

Decide, Ask, or Defer: Clinical LLMs under Incomplete Evidence

Clinical LLMs must decide not only what diagnosis to produce, but also whether the available evidence is sufficient for autonomous decision making. Binary DECIDE/ABSTAIN formulations merge distinct non decision states and do not explicitly evaluate information acquisition. We introduce a DECIDE/ASK/DEFER formulation together with a blinded protocol that prevents models from using evidence completeness metadata. We evaluate Qwen, Gemini, and GPT on 200 matched clinical evidence states constructed from DDXPlus. The models show substantial differences in action selection under identical evidence, with disagreement in 137 of 200 states. For Qwen, a matched targeted versus random analysis shows that selected information changes the likelihood of a subsequent autonomous decision more clearly than diagnostic correctness. Its matched DECIDE/ABSTAIN baseline further reveals a safety autonomy tradeoff: the three action policy rescues some erroneous autonomous decisions but also removes some correct autonomous deci sions. These results show that separating information acquisition from clinician deferral exposes behavior that binary abstention hides, without yielding a uniformly improved decision policy.

Mingzhan Yang, Weili Wu

Department of Computer Science University of Texas at Dallas Richardson, TX 75080

Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Language Model Evaluation LLM Abstention Active Information Gathering

Oct 1, 2026cs.AI

Counterfactual Auditing of Bias in Open-Source Large Language Models for Clinical Triage

Emergency department (ED) triage is a high-stakes prioritization task in which demographic, socioeconomic, and system-context information may improperly influence acuity assignment. Although open-source large language models (LLMs) are increasingly considered for local and privacy-preserving clinical decision support, it remains unclear how counterfactual bias varies across model families, sizes, medical-domain models, and domain-adapted models. We present a comparative counterfactual audit of ten open-source LLMs for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. Starting from real and handbook-style clinical vignettes, we construct paired counterfactual variants that change only one injected demographic, socioeconomic, healthcare-access, behavioral, social, or system-context variable while holding the clinical presentation fixed. Models include Qwen2.5-7B, Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct, a QLoRA fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B, MedGemma variants, MedLLaMA2-7B, GPT-OSS-20B, and GPT-OSS-120B. We measure any counterfactual shift, undertriage, overtriage, shifts greater than one ESI level, mean shift, and mean absolute shift. Counterfactual sensitivity varied substantially and did not consistently decrease with larger model size or medical-domain pretraining. The fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B showed the lowest overall sensitivity, with a 5.27% any-shift rate and mean absolute shift of 0.0534, versus 16.02% and 0.1706 for the base model. Several larger or medical-domain models showed more significant shifts. Stratified and correlation analyses further revealed clinically important directionality and shared failure patterns hidden by aggregate rates. These findings support counterfactual auditing as a lightweight, clinically interpretable framework for comparing fairness risks in open-source LLMs before clinical deployment.

Manar Aljohani, Brandon Ho, Kenneth McKinley +2

Department of Computer Science Virginia Tech Blacksburg, VA, US · Division of Emergency Medicine University of Washington and Seattle Children’s Hospital Seattle, WA, USA · Children’s National Hospital Washington DC, USA

Clinical Decision-Making Language Model Bias Evaluation Demographic Bias in Language Models Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Sep 30, 2026cs.LG

Patient-Centered Treatment Planning for Chronic Multimorbidity: A Hierarchical Reinforcement Learning Framework for Preference Modeling

Patient preference, defined as a patient's demonstrated willingness and capacity to adhere to clinical recommendations, is a primary determinant of therapeutic effect yet remains structurally absent from existing computational treatment planning models. We address this gap by presenting patient-centered factored-action hierarchical option-critic (FAHOC), a hierarchical reinforcement learning (HRL) framework that jointly learns high-level options corresponding to therapeutic strategies and factored intra-option policies that decompose the joint action space into disease- and intervention-specific subcomponents, while imposing a cooperation-aware action masking mechanism. This enables structured exploration, improved credit assignment across hierarchy levels, and more interpretable decision pathways, while enforcing patients' preferences. Formal guarantees establish that cooperative patients achieve higher optimal expected health outcomes than non-cooperative patients, and that the factored Q-function approximation error is provably bounded. The framework is evaluated using longitudinal data collected from approximately 50,000 comorbid hypertension and type 2 diabetes mellitus patients from five hospitals in the Southeast U.S. FAHOC achieves a quality-adjusted life year expectancy equivalent improvement of 0.669 (vs -0.133 observed clinician practice), correctly identifies cooperative patients in 95.9% of cases and never violates a patient's preference in held-out test, demonstrating that HRL with explicit preference constraints can support preference-consistent, clinically safe decision-making in multimorbidity management.

Nafiseh Payani, Soham Das, G. Anthony Wilson +1

Department of Industrial and Systems Engineering at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN, USA · Department of Industrial Engineering at the University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, USA

Healthcare Hierarchical RL Clinical Decision-Making User Preference Modeling Preference-Based RL

Sep 29, 2026cs.AI

Sense and Sensitivity: Benchmarking LLM Clinical Triage Recommendations with Physician Experts

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.

Abinitha Gourabathina, Haoran Zhang, Yuexing Hao +2

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science · Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Department of Computer Science

Clinical Triage Clinical Decision-Making Language Model Bias Evaluation Clinical Language Model Evaluation Language Model Robustness

Sep 29, 2026cs.CL

KlinikeBench: Evaluating Language Models Beyond Diagnostic Accuracy

Most clinical benchmarks evaluate language models (LMs) on diagnosis using complete case descriptions. In clinical practice, however, patients present information in different ways, and clinicians must obtain relevant history and determine which examinations are needed before reaching a diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy alone therefore cannot establish whether an agent gathered essential information or conducted an appropriate clinical assessment. Furthermore, existing benchmarks lack professional clinicians' verification. To address this gap, we introduce KlinikeBench, a benchmark of 333 clinician-authored tasks, each providing an isolated sandbox environment with a virtual patient, clinical tools, and task-specific success criteria. More than 35 clinicians contributed to case authoring and benchmark evaluation. In an empirical study, clinicians gave simulated dialogues higher mean quality ratings than reference conversations, which is adapted from real conversation. In each task, an LM has a fixed budget of turns to communicate with the patient, ask about relevant history, request examinations, follow action constraints, and record a final diagnosis. We score these steps separately as well as together. Across 31 models and seven model families, the best-performing models (e.g., GPT-6-astra and Claude Opus 5) succeed on less than 30% of tasks, even though their diagnosis accuracy reaches 90.7%. Some models benefit from talking with the patient; others diagnose well from a complete chart but perform much worse in conversation. Overall, KlinikeBench provides a testbed for evaluating the full clinical encounter and reveals a substantial gap between diagnostic accuracy and performance in interactive clinical assessment. All the code and data is available on https://zehui127.github.io/klinikebench/

Xueting Fang, Zehui Li, Yang Yang +5

Zhejiang University · Imperial College London · Nanchang University +2

Clinical Decision-Making Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation Clinical Reasoning Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Sep 28, 2026cs.CL

Can LLMs Value the Right Evidence? Evidence-Value Misalignment in Dynamic Medical Diagnosis

A correct diagnosis reached from insufficient or misleading evidence can pose a clinical hazard, yet outcome-based accuracy may reward such lucky guesses. We call this mismatch between diagnostic decisions and the value of available evidence Evidence-Value Misalignment (EVM). To disentangle evidential grounding independently from diagnostic accuracy, we introduce MedEVM, a dynamic benchmarking environment comprising 1,050 cases across 24 disease systems. Observations arrive turn by turn, requiring models to continuously calibrate its decision by deciding whether to wait for more evidence or submit a diagnosis. Across 9 LLMs, four interesting patterns are observed. (1) Miscalibrated evidence tracking. Making a diagnosis often fails to calibrate evidence sufficiency, even in more capable models, and even worsens in reasoning mode. (2) Misaligned diagnosis submission. Confidence in the correct diagnosis often fails to ensure timely submission despite sufficient evidence. (3) Evidence order matters. Reordering the same evidence changes diagnoses even when model confidence remains similar. (4) Misleading evidence remains influential. Added misleading evidence redirects diagnoses even after prior evidence becomes sufficient. We further verify that EVM predicts errors and that preventing premature submission improves accuracy. These findings motivate Evidence-Verified Diagnosis Harness (EVD-Harness). It decouples diagnosis generation from submission through an offline Contrastive Diagnostic Wiki and three online control stages, namely observation management, proposal and witness verification, and diagnosis submission control. Across five LLMs, EVD-Harness improves accuracy by 12.0--51.1 percentage points while mitigating EVM-related failures. Our results demonstrate that verifying evidential support before submission can make diagnostic decisions more reliable.

Kehua Feng, Yunsheng Lu, Yitong Qiao +5

Zhejiang University · Ant Healthcare, Ant Group

LLM Evaluation Evidence-Grounded Reasoning Medical Diagnosis Clinical Decision-Making

Sep 26, 2026cs.CL

OpenTumorBoard: A Real-World Benchmark of Multidisciplinary Tumor Board Discussion Trajectories

Multidisciplinary tumor boards integrate multimodal clinical observations and longitudinal patient histories through specialist discussions, yet benchmarks rarely capture these real-world trajectories. We introduce OpenTumorBoard, a benchmark with 611 patient cases and 19,157 discussion turns across ten specialist roles, transcribed from 12,534 minutes of publicly available tumor board recordings on YouTube. The benchmark evaluates two settings: SPECIALIST TURN, in which an LLM responds to a clinically significant question posed during a real discussion, and BOARD SIMULATION, in which it generates an entire back-and-forth discussion and reaches a consensus on therapy recommendations, surgical plans, next actions and clinical trial matching. Evaluation of 14 general-purpose frontier and medical LLMs reveals substantial limitations: the best models score 3.43 out of 5 in clinical equivalence to specialist answers and 2.78 out of 5 in alignment with recorded board conclusions. Supervised finetuning and reinforcement learning improve performance on a held-out test set, suggesting that real-world discussion trajectories can support model adaptation. Three M.D. experts review a subset of the benchmark, finding high information coverage and factuality of patient cases and strong fidelity of extracted consensus conclusions. We will release OpenTumorBoard and its automated curation pipeline to support the development and evaluation of LLMs for multidisciplinary, personalized cancer decision-making.

Anqi Li, Zhixuan Ge, Yixuan Duan +9

Rice University · University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign · University of Washington +3

Clinical Decision-Making Oncology Clinical Language Model Evaluation Text Generation

Sep 26, 2026cs.CV

AnesTRACE: Benchmarking Intraoperative Anesthesia from Multimodal Perception to Multi-step Decision-Making

Intraoperative anesthesia requires systems to interpret evolving multimodal evidence, recommend timely management, and revise decisions as patient states change, yet existing benchmarks usually isolate perception or single-point reasoning. We introduce AnesTRACE, an evaluation suite comprising AnesTRACE-Bench and AnesTRACE-Eval. Built from public perioperative datasets with anesthesiologist annotation, AnesTRACE-Bench evaluates Intraoperative Perception, Single-point Anesthesia Decision-Making, and Multi-step Anesthesia Decision-Making. AnesTRACE-Eval assesses open-ended responses through anesthesiologist-defined criteria for Clinical Correctness, Evidence Grounding, Task Completeness, and Safety, with Temporal Consistency for multi-step decisions; its domain-specific evaluator is trained by supervised fine-tuning and preference alignment on expert-reviewed judgments. Across more than 30 models, fine-grained visual grounding and intervention selection remain difficult: the leading model reaches only 32.2 mIoU for TEE visual grounding and retains a 17.5% Major/Critical Safety Error Rate in multi-step management. Evaluator alignment with anesthesiologists improves across both training stages, while the best decision quality is accompanied by a 74.3-second P95 Latency. These results show that aggregate performance alone does not establish safe, timely longitudinal decision-making. We release our code at https://zjudbxai.github.io/AnesTRACE/.

Ziwei Huang, Qi Gao, Zhe Ji +5

School of Software Technology, Zhejiang University · Department of Anesthesiology, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine · School of Software, Central South University +1

Healthcare Clinical Decision Support Clinical Decision-Making Multimodal Model Evaluation

Sep 24, 2026cs.AI

An auditable conditional-strategy framework for open-ended decision-making in complex lung cancer

Complex lung cancer decisions can involve several defensible pathways whose eligibility, sequencing and safety depend on unresolved information. Effective support must make explicit how patient conditions govern pathway eligibility, deferral and redirection. MedGPT Clinical Explorer (MCE) organizes alternatives, decision-changing unknowns, safety constraints and fallback into a conditional strategy for clinician review. To evaluate this representation in physician-authored strategies, multidisciplinary experts established case-specific references for 40 cases within a purposive 100-case corpus, and 250 physicians from 98 institutions produced 2,250 strategies under unaided, retrieval-reference and MCE-assisted conditions. MCE-assisted strategies expressed more applicable clinical requirements, measured by the Admissible Pathway Attainment Score (APAS; 0-100), than unaided strategies (adjusted difference, 12.87; 95% CI, 11.18-14.55) and retrieval-reference strategies (5.22; 3.52-6.93). With the same knowledge base available in the retrieval-reference and MCE-assisted conditions, the additional content centered on candidate pathways, decision-critical information and safety constraints. Physicians' whole-strategy acceptability judgments correlated with APAS (Spearman's rho = 0.671), while a complementary relationship audit assessed whether candidates, conditions and subsequent actions were coherently connected. Together, these findings identify two complementary dimensions of open-ended decision support: coverage of clinically relevant content and coherent links among pathways, conditions and subsequent actions. MCE provides a shared decision object that makes consequential omissions and pathway contingencies visible before action; prospective studies should evaluate its effects on clinical workflow and patient outcomes.

Daoyun Wang, Zhicheng Huang, Huaiyuan Sun +39

Clinical Decision Support Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Reasoning Oncology Human-AI Decision Making

Sep 21, 2026cs.LG

Misaligned Clinical Risk Classification and Cost Asymmetry in Open-Weight Large Language Models

How large language models (LLMs) integrate patient risk with clinical cost tradeoffs remains poorly understood. We investigated how four open-weight LLMs (Qwen-2.5-7B/32B and Llama-3.1-8B/70B) internally represent cost tradeoffs, how these representations relate to clinical predictions, and whether decisions shift as predicted by the specified cost direction and magnitude. Using a public diabetes dataset, we varied 11 false-negative (FN) to false-positive (FP) cost ratios across three phrasings and examined representations and behavioral outputs. Patient risk was linearly recoverable on par with conventional classifiers (AUC

\approx 0.83

), and cost direction was recoverable in every model. However, representational shifts in cost direction tracked output changes only in the two larger models, and responses to cost magnitude were predominantly direction-agnostic. Only 2 of 12 model-phrasings showed both opposing responses to increasing FN versus FP costs and cost-correct ordering. Representationally, a direction fitted on one cost side did not invert when transferred to the other, as expected under mirror-symmetric encoding. These findings suggest that LLMs encode risk and cost information but do not reliably integrate them into cost-correct decisions. Clinical evaluations should therefore include tradeoff tests, phrasing sensitivity, and default operating points alongside predictive performance.

Star S. D. Liu, Xiyu Ding, Robert B. Barrett +3

Biomedical Informatics and Data Science, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA · Microsoft, Redmond, WA, USA · National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA

Cost-Sensitive Learning LLM Interpretability Clinical Decision-Making Open-Weight Language Models Clinical Language Model Evaluation Clinical Risk Prediction

Sep 15, 2026cs.CL

Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation: A Conversational Benchmark for Safe Stroke Care in Japanese Using Large Language Models

Background: Large language models (LLMs) have achieved physician-comparable performance on multiple-choice medical knowledge examinations, but their capabilities in clinical history taking, urgency assessment, and safety remain insufficiently evaluated. We proposed Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation, a multi-turn conversational benchmark for stroke care in Japanese, and evaluated LLM performance and safety under practice-oriented conditions. Methods: We created 10 stroke and related-condition cases and evaluated LLMs in multi-turn Japanese conversations. The LLM acted as physician, while a board-certified neurosurgeon acted as simulated patient and evaluator. Each case comprised history-taking and action phases scored using pre-specified criteria. Errors that could directly threaten life were defined as critical mistakes. The safety threshold was at least 80% overall with zero critical mistakes. Eighteen models were evaluated in October 2025 and June 2026. Results: Claude Fable 5 achieved the highest score (87.4%) with zero critical mistakes, followed by Claude Opus 4.7 (80.3%) and GLM-5.2 (75.6%). Two leaders met the safety threshold. Eleven models made 17 critical mistakes, including failure to confirm laboratory results or blood glucose before t-PA, surgery before airway stabilization, omission of cervical vascular evaluation, and t-PA outside its indication. History-taking question count correlated with history-taking score (r = 0.648, p = 0.007). Conclusions: Japanese Stroke LLM Evaluation provides a benchmark for LLM performance under practice-oriented conditions, including a cap on history-taking questions. Cases and evaluations were created by neurosurgical specialists rather than using an LLM-as-judge approach. Performance improved across cloud-based and on-premise models in 2026, with some exceeding the safety threshold. Further evaluation using real-world cases is required.

Keisuke Masuda, Kazutaka Yatsushiro, Hirohumi Iwamoto +2

Department of Neurosurgery, National Hospital Organization Kagoshima Medical Center, Kagoshima, Japan · Department of Neurology, Imamura General Hospital, Kagoshima, Japan · Iwamoto Neurosurgery, Kanoya, Kagoshima, Japan +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks Healthcare Clinical Decision-Making Conversational Agents Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Sep 14, 2026cs.LG

Optimizing for the decision not the prediction: an exploration of Smooth Net Benefit as a training objective

Objective Prediction models are commonly trained using objectives such as Bernoulli negative log-likelihood (NLL), although downstream clinical decisions may depend on specific risk thresholds. We introduce Smooth Net Benefit (

\sigma

NB), a differentiable approximation of Net Benefit designed to align model training with threshold-specific clinical utility. Materials and Methods We evaluated

\sigma

NB as a training objective for logistic regression, generalized additive models (GAMs), and XGBoost with three Hessian implementations. Experiments used the Framingham cardiovascular risk dataset and 44 TabZilla datasets comprising 72 dataset-threshold combinations. Results

\sigma

NB training did not consistently improve Net Benefit in Framingham. Across the TabZilla benchmark, mean standardized Net Benefit for logistic regression increased from 0.5669 with NLL to 0.5765 with

\sigma

NB (mean difference 0.0096, 95% CI -0.0001 to 0.0193). For GAMs, mean standardized Net Benefit decreased from 0.5921 to 0.5625 (mean difference -0.0296, 95% CI -0.0721 to 0.0129). For XGBoost, NLL achieved 0.6745 compared with 0.6723--0.6735 across

\sigma

NB implementations. In logistic regression,

\sigma

NB gains were positively associated with the performance advantage of XGBoost over NLL-trained logistic regression. Discussion The effect of

\sigma

NB was context dependent, with modest gains concentrated in logistic regression and little benefit for more flexible model classes. This suggests that decision-focused optimization may be most useful when limited model flexibility leaves greater scope for improvement. Conclusion Our results do not support

\sigma

NB as a general replacement for NLL training, but support further investigation of decision-focused objectives in settings where conventional likelihood-based training may not adequately capture decision-relevant structure.

Koen M. F. Gorgels, Lasai Barreñada, Maarten van Smeden +3

Department of Data Science and Biostatistics, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands · Coo peratie VGZ, Arnhem, the Netherlands · Department of Development and Regeneration, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium

Predict-Then-Optimize Decision-Focused Learning Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Risk Prediction

Sep 13, 2026cs.CL

MedTRACE: Tool-Augmented Multimodal Clinical Reasoning Agents for Evidence-Grounded Decision-Making

Multimodal clinical decision-making requires reliable reasoning over heterogeneous evidence from electronic health records, medical images, and physiological signals. Existing models typically map these inputs directly to diagnoses without explicitly assessing evidence sufficiency, tool-use requirements, or diagnostic uncertainty. This paper presents MedTRACE, a tool-augmented multimodal clinical reasoning agent for evidence-grounded decision-making. MedTRACE uses modality-specific encoders to construct a unified patient-state representation and performs an iterative loop of hypothesis formation, toolaware deliberation, and evidence verification. It dynamically invokes visual grounding, evidence retrieval, and structured parsing tools to locate diagnosis-relevant regions, retrieve clinical knowledge and similar cases, and extract structured findings. The acquired evidence enters an evidence memory, where a consistency verifier confirms or revises the current hypothesis. MedTRACE outputs a diagnosis together with supporting evidence, an auditable reasoning trace, and calibrated confidence. Experiments on multiple multimodal clinical diagnosis benchmarks show that MedTRACE improves diagnostic accuracy by 5.4% and AUROC by 4.7 percentage points over the strongest baseline. It also improves evidenceselection F1 by 8.2 percentage points and visual-grounding IoU by 6.5 percentage points, reduces expected calibration error by 31.6%, and decreases unsupported diagnostic errors by 27.8%. These results demonstrate that active evidence acquisition and verification improve the accuracy, interpretability, and reliability of multimodal clinical decisionmaking.

Ji Lu, Lifei Liu, Haoran Yu +5

Vanderbilt University, United States · Wichita State University, United States · University of Florida, United States +4

Medical Diagnosis Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Reasoning Multimodal Agents Multimodal Tool Use

Sep 9, 2026cs.CY

Emergency Department Revisit Quality Review Screening: Exploring Human Decision-Making and Artificial Intelligence Support

Background: Emergency Department (ED) return visits are commonly reviewed for quality assurance, but are often limited (e.g., to revisits within 48-72 hours) to increase actionable finding yield while minimizing chart review burden. Those limitations may lead to missed quality improvement opportunities. Methods: We conducted an exploratory, retrospective study of randomly selected ED visits to a multihospital health system having an ED revisit within 1-14 days to the same health system. Given only each visit's primary diagnosis, raters (2-3 clinicians and GPT-4 large language model [LLM]) assessed characteristics of the diagnosis pairs, including the "target": whether a pair warranted further assessment. Informed by rater response analyses, an algorithm leveraging an LLM-populated knowledge graph ("KGA") was created to automatically screen for potentially concerning pairs, then preliminarily assessed. Results: 99 diagnosis pairs were included. GPT-4 responses poorly correlated to clinician raters, rating nearly all (94%) pairs as warranting follow-up (4.4-13.3 times more than clinicians). However, prompt engineering was minimal. Among clinician raters, revisit medical gravity was consistently significantly associated with the target, while a differential diagnosis/complication composite was significantly associated on unadjusted, but not adjusted (though less powered) analysis. The KGA achieved 83-100% positive predictive value for at least one clinician rater determining further assessment was warranted based on the diagnosis pair. Conclusion: These results can inform next steps for improving screening with LLMs like ChatGPT. Further research is warranted to validate this preliminary work's finding that the KGA may enable enhancing the scope and yield of screening without substantially increasing reviewer workload.

Jonathan A. Handler, Marlene I. Robles-Granda, Jacob E. Mefford +5

Clinical Intelligence and Advanced Data Lab, OSF HealthCare, Peoria, IL · Digital Innovation Development, OSF HealthCare, Peoria, IL · OnCall, OSF HealthCare, Peoria, IL +7

Clinical Decision Support Clinical Decision-Making Human-AI Decision Making Clinical Language Model Evaluation Knowledge Graphs Clinical Risk Prediction

Sep 9, 2026cs.AI

Safe to Stop? Risk-Constrained Stopping for Sequential Clinical Diagnosis Agents

Clinical diagnosis agents must decide not only what test to request next, but also when to diagnose or defer. Existing agent benchmarks largely evaluate accuracy after fixed or unconstrained interaction, leaving autonomous stopping reliability implicit. We present Cros, a risk-constrained stopping layer combining state-wise error ranking, policy design on disjoint development splits, and LTT-style exact tests of selective diagnostic error and minimum autonomous coverage for complete sequential policies. Its finite-sample guarantee requires the candidate family, testing rule, and any randomization to be frozen before calibration labels are accessed. On a 1,834-episode MIMIC-derived abdominal-pain benchmark, the full ranker achieves exploratory state-error AUROC 0.853, compared with 0.715 for maximum class probability and 0.552 for the backbone's native stop score. On the previously viewed 367-episode evaluation split, analytically averaging over the frozen Cros weights yields 16.9% selective error at 78.8% coverage, cost 5.57, and 0.68 tests, versus 30.8% error at 100% coverage, cost 8.14, and 1.53 tests under native stopping. Forced continuation is non-monotone: error is 28.3% with HPI alone and 34.3% after full workup. However, the uniform-weight mixture ablation is cheaper on this viewed split despite missing the locked development margins, and Cros nominally satisfies the joint criterion in only 6 of 20 development resplits. Because evaluation labels were inspected during earlier development, these findings provide exploratory feasibility and audit evidence, not a confirmatory safety certificate.

Yuexin Wu, Vasile Rus

Department of Computer Science University of Memphis

Selective Prediction AI Agent Evaluation Optimal Stopping Clinical Decision-Making

Sep 8, 2026cs.CL

Performance of Clinical AI System and Physicians and Frontier Language Models in primary care diagnostics

Clinical AI evaluation should encompass diagnosis and management after adaptive information gathering. We compared Doctorina, eight physicians and four standalone frontier language models in 150 synthetic Polish-language primary-care consultations. Doctorina achieved 82.0% Top-1 concordance versus 57.0% for physicians (difference, 25.0 percentage points; 95% confidence interval, 17.7-32.7) and 97.3% versus 85.0% primary-or-reference-differential concordance. Across 149 case pairs, normalized workup and treatment scores were 89.4 versus 66.9 and 83.7 versus 61.2. Doctorina had the highest diagnostic point estimates among all six groups; Kimi K3 ranked next, while Claude Opus 5 led the closely spaced management estimates of Opus, Doctorina and Kimi. A second Doctorina execution reproduced the advantages over physicians across all outcomes. Doctorina's advantage over physicians therefore extended from primary-diagnosis selection to higher-rated diagnostic workup and initial treatment after adaptive consultation.

Andy Nkansah, Hanna Plotnitskaya, Stanislau Salavei +6

1A.I. Doctor Medical Assist LTD, Limassol, Cyprus. · 2Family Medicine Specialist, Kraków, Poland.

Healthcare Medical Diagnosis Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Reasoning Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Sep 7, 2026cs.CL

ObGynLongBench: Revealing the Evidence-to-EHR Gap in Longitudinal EHR Decision-Making

The application of large language models (LLMs) to personalized medical assistants has garnered growing interest. However, existing medical benchmarks largely rely on static question answering with pre-selected evidence, leaving unclear whether LLMs can make reliable clinical decisions from real longitudinal electronic health records (EHRs). To bridge this gap, we introduce ObGynLongBench, a rule-grounded long-context EHR benchmark for obstetric and gynecologic decision-making, comprising 1,500 clinical decision-point cases from 976 real pregnancy EHR histories and traceable rules. Each case is anchored to a patient, a pregnancy-timeline point, and a pre-decision information boundary, enabling Evidence-only, Visit-level EHR, and History-level EHR evaluation. Evaluating 17 LLMs reveals a substantial Evidence-to-EHR Gap: models perform well when evidence is directly provided, but accuracy drops when evidence must be extracted from same-day records or full pre-decision EHR histories. Further analyses identify evidence utilization as a key bottleneck: performance decreases with longer EHR contexts and more complex evidence requirements, and earlier failures often predict later failures within the same patient history. Finally, active-search agents perform best among EHR access strategies, highlighting patient-specific evidence utilization as a central challenge for reliable personalized medical assistants. Resources are available at https://github.com/xiangjun2003/ObgynLongbench.

Jun Xiang, Zhijie Bao, Rong Hu +3

School of Data Science, Fudan University, China · 2Shanghai Innovation Institute, China · Department of Obstetrics, Obstetrics & Gynecology Hospital of Fudan University, Shanghai Key Lab of Reproduction and Development, Shanghai Key Lab of Female Reproductive Endocrine Related Diseases, Shanghai, China +2

LLM Evaluation Clinical Decision-Making Electronic Health Records

Aug 31, 2026cs.MA

Evidence, Logic, and Compliance: Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning with Expert Arbitration for Medical Referral

Medical referral (directing patients to the appropriate hospital department) is a complex decision-making process requiring the synthesis of multimodal data, including patient narratives, laboratory indicators, and radiology imaging. While Large Language Models (LLMs) have advanced medical dialogue systems, they struggle with real-world referral tasks due to two primary limitations: (1) Information Overload, where models fixate on high-frequency disease terms while overlooking subtle but critical urgency indicators; and (2) Unstructured Collaboration, where existing multi-agent frameworks rely on loose dialogue that leads to semantic drift and confirmation bias. To address these challenges, we introduce MASGR (Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning), a framework that treats referral not as a classification task but as a structured graph construction problem. MASGR deploys specialized agents to extract evidence from distinct modalities and coordinates them through a clinical reasoning graph. This graph forces agents to establish explicit logical connections between conflicting evidence. Furthermore, we integrate a knowledge-guided arbitration mechanism that prioritizes patient safety rules over standard diagnostic classification. Extensive experiments on real-world medical records demonstrate that MASGR significantly outperforms state-of-the-art LLMs and existing multi-agent systems, particularly in complex cases requiring the balancing of chronic disease management and emergency intervention. The AI contribution lies in the Multi-Agent Structured Graph Reasoning framework that transforms unstructured multi-agent dialogue into a verifiable logical graph construction. The engineering application is demonstrated through its deployment in a complex healthcare decision-making system to optimize the precision of complex medical referrals.

Qi Peng, Yi Cai, Jialin Cui +7

School of Software Engineering, South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, China · School of Computer Science and Network Engineering, Guangzhou University, Guangzhou China · Department of Computing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong, China +2

Clinical Decision-Making Graph Reasoning Multi-Agent Reasoning Multimodal Agents

Aug 25, 2026cs.CL

Beyond Information Seeking: Severity-Aware Question Supervision for Proactive Medical Dialogue

Proactive medical dialogue requires an agent to decide what to ask from incomplete patient information. Existing information-seeking approaches commonly prioritize questions that most reduce diagnostic uncertainty, but this criterion overlooks an important property of medical diagnosis: different diagnostic errors can carry substantially different consequences. The most informative question may therefore differ from the one most valuable for the downstream decision. We propose Expected-Severity-Risk (ESR), a consequence-aware question-supervision objective that values each candidate by its expected reduction in severity-aware terminal risk. Because questions must be selected before their answers are observed, ESR marginalizes over possible answers using train-only population statistics. Its rankings are then distilled into a prefix-only language policy, requiring no teacher-side risk computation at deployment. Across three matched Qwen3-4B training seeds on DDxPlus, ESR reduces mean high-severity diagnostic miss from 0.0645 to 0.0455 (29.5% relative reduction) and improves mean diagnostic accuracy from 0.9123 to 0.9320 while requiring only 0.14 additional questions per dialogue. Fixed-budget analyses show that the distinction persists when question count is controlled, while a matched expected-0/1-risk student control further isolates the contribution of asymmetric severity weighting. These results support moving proactive medical dialogue beyond uncertainty reduction toward consequence-aware evidence acquisition.

Chenxuan Li, Xinrong Chen, Luyan Zhang +5

Peking University, Beijing, China · Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA · Sun Yat-sen University, Guangzhou, China +1

Clinical Decision-Making

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

An Agentic Generative Large Language Model for Treatment Planning of Colorectal Cancer

Treatment planning in precision oncology requires synthesizing heterogeneous patient information with rapidly evolving clinical guidelines to ensure guideline-concordant care. While large language models (LLMs) show promise in many diagnostic tasks, their adoption for high-stakes treatment planning is hindered by complex reasoning, adherence to timely clinical guidelines, and safety concerns. In this study, we present GatorOnco, an agentic LLM for colorectal cancer (CRC) treatment planning. GatorOnco is developed using a total of 282 billion tokens of biomedical text, including healthcare system-scale clinical text comprising 166 billion tokens from UF Health. We implemented a domain-adaptation method that integrates pre-training, model merging, a two-stage post-training approach, and agent-based reinforcement learning. An agentic retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) approach dynamically integrates time-sensitive clinical guidelines into the reasoning process. In a blind, randomized clinical evaluation conducted by five UF Health oncologists, GatorOnco significantly outperformed open-source LLMs (P < 0.01) and achieved expert-level performance comparable to UF Health oncologists. Compared with expert oncologists, GatorOnco received significantly higher ratings for readability (4.46 vs. 4.19, P < 0.01) and completeness (3.91 vs. 3.52, P < 0.01), while showing statistically comparable performance in correctness (4.09 vs. 4.11, P = 0.921), currency (4.04 vs. 3.98, P = 0.478), and safety (4.22 vs. 4.22, P = 0.999). These findings demonstrate that integrating agentic reasoning with large-scale domain adaptation can help bridge the gap for generative AI in high-stakes cancer treatment planning.

Mengxian Lyu, Cheng Peng, Tim Jang +18

Department of Health Outcomes and Biomedical Informatics, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA. · Division of Hematology & Oncology, Department of Medicine, College of Medicine, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA · University of Florida Health Cancer Institute, Gainesville, FL, USA +8

Clinical Decision-Making Domain Adaptation for LLMs Oncology Clinical Language Model Evaluation Medical LLMs

Aug 10, 2026cs.CL

ELICITED: EHR-grounded Longitudinal Interactive Conversations for Information-seeking Triage Evaluation and Decision-making

Emergency-department (ED) triage requires clinicians to rapidly identify patients who need immediate attention, determine who can safely wait, and prioritize limited clinical resources. At presentation, however, information may be limited to a chief complaint and initial vital signs. Clinically important details, including symptom onset and progression, associated symptoms, medical history, and medication use, are often obtained through focused conversation. Effective triage therefore requires clinicians to identify information gaps, ask appropriate follow-up questions, and update their assessment as new evidence becomes available. Most existing ED benchmarks evaluate acuity prediction from a fixed clinical snapshot. Although this formulation measures predictive performance after patient information has been assembled, it does not capture the interactive process through which triage-relevant evidence is elicited and interpreted. Existing medical dialogue datasets support the study of clinical communication, but dialogue statements are not always linked to temporally ordered events in the electronic health record (EHR). We introduce EHR2Dial-Triage, an agentic conversation-generation framework and benchmark grounded in MIMIC-IV-ED. The framework constructs triage conversations under explicit role-based and temporal information boundaries. Each accepted patient disclosure is linked to its supporting EHR event and the first dialogue turn at which it becomes available. EHR2Dial-Triage enables controlled evaluation of information elicitation, evidence use, five-level Emergency Severity Index prediction, and patient-facing communication across models and patient personas. It provides a structured setting for studying conversational triage as a dynamic process of clinical information acquisition, reasoning, and communication.

Haohao Zhu, Xiaolin Shi, Jiayu Zhou

University of Michigan · Ellipsis Health

Clinical Triage Clinical Decision-Making Multi-Turn Dialogue Evaluation

Aug 7, 2026cs.AI

ResidencyRL: Reinforcement Learning in Simulated Clinical Environments

In medical education, physicians convert academic knowledge into clinical expertise through residency: years of training across thousands of encounters, with diverse sources of feedback and progressively greater autonomy. Much of clinical reasoning relies on the patient encounter, a dialogue in which a clinician elicits history, refines diagnostic hypotheses, and decides management under uncertainty. While large language models (LLMs) excel on static medical benchmarks, methods to optimize the full sequence of clinical decisions remain underdeveloped. We present ResidencyRL, a reinforcement learning (RL) method for training clinical artificial intelligence (AI) agents through simulated multi-turn clinical encounters (up to 60 dialogue turns and 8 tool calls per trajectory). ResidencyRL pairs the policy agent with LLM simulators capable of complex, adversarial behaviors, training against a structured reward aligned to diagnostic accuracy, management quality, communication, documentation, and safety. On held-out evaluations, the ResidencyRL agent improves diagnostic accuracy by 7.0% under adversarial conditions (88.0% vs. 81.0%) and reduces missed red flag rates by 31%, demonstrating rigorous mitigation of premature closure. Blinded expert clinicians validated these gains, preferring the trained agent in 87.6% of side-by-side comparisons. The procedural competencies transfer to unseen benchmarks: the agent outperforms the base model across all six clinical axes of the AMIE multi-visit benchmark, and shows consistent directional improvements on AgentClinic and CRAFT-MD. Our findings demonstrate that sequential clinical decision-making can be effectively learned through multi-turn RL in simulation, yielding robust, generalizable capabilities, paving the way towards clinical mastery. Prospective validation with real-world workflows remains necessary to establish clinical utility.

Valentin Liévin, Samuel Schmidgall, Tim Strother +32

Google DeepMind · Google Research · Department of Oncology, Houston Methodist Hospital, Houston, TX +3

Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Reasoning RL for LLM Agents

Aug 6, 2026cs.CY

The Judgment-Consequence Gap: LLM Moral Reasoning in Healthcare Decisions

As large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare, understanding their moral reasoning becomes essential. Decisions about scarce medical resources often hinge on judgments of responsibility, particularly when patients' own actions contribute to illness. We investigate how LLMs reason about responsibility and its consequences, tracing their judgments across successive levels, from the behavior, to the resulting illness, to the denial of care. We evaluate a wide range of LLMs, spanning different model families and capability levels, on various clinical vignettes adapted from prior studies. Our results identify a judgment-consequence gap: LLMs largely agree with humans that patients bear responsibility for health-harming behaviors, yet overwhelmingly refuse to let that judgment influence how they allocate scarce resources. Specifically, LLMs default to random allocation, whereas humans consistently favor the less-culpable patient. Compared to humans, LLMs also place greater emphasis on access to information, reducing responsibility judgments when health-risk knowledge is unavailable. These findings reveal that LLMs apply a systematically different moral framework than humans when responsibility and resource scarcity intersect, surprisingly often amplifying normative disagreement with humans as reasoning capability increases.

Hadi Hosseini, Samarth Khanna, Leona Pierce

Pennsylvania State University

Moral Reasoning in Language Models Clinical Decision-Making Human-AI Decision Making

Aug 5, 2026cs.CL

RESPClinBench: Benchmarking Multimodal Clinical Decision-Making and Longitudinal Disease Management in Respiratory Specialty Care

Background: Respiratory specialty care requires multimodal interpretation, longitudinal risk assessment, guideline-concordant intervention, and whole-course management, which are poorly represented by examination-oriented medical benchmarks. Objective: To develop RESPClinBench, a real-world scenario-based benchmark for respiratory clinical decision-making, and evaluate seven contemporary large language models across AECOPD-PIM and PNBIM. Methods: RESPClinBench cases were adapted from de-identified respiratory clinical data. Three attending-level respiratory physicians revised cases, reference answers, and atomic clinical-action points, while one senior respiratory specialist performed cross-review and final adjudication. AECOPD-PIM comprised 427 open-ended COPD cases, and PNBIM comprised 196 multimodal pulmonary nodule cases combining chest CT with structured clinical information. Seven models generated 4,361 responses through standardized API inference with temperature 0 and a maximum output length of 8192 tokens. An automated framework calculated the final score as the arithmetic mean of atomic-action recall and rubric-based LLM-as-a-Judge assessment. Results: Across 623 cases, the mean final score was 68.58. Qwen3.6-27B ranked first overall at 71.22, Qwen3.5-397B-A17B led PNBIM at 72.48, and Qwen3.6-27B led AECOPD-PIM at 71.11. Imaging hallucination and serious medical risk occurred in 31.85% and 8.16% of PNBIM responses; medication-safety risk and serious medical risk occurred in 26.93% and 1.44% of AECOPD-PIM responses. Conclusions: RESPClinBench identifies task-specific limitations in multimodal pulmonary nodule assessment and longitudinal COPD management. Combining explicit clinical-action coverage, holistic evaluation, and independent safety flags provides a clinically grounded basis for model selection and prospective validation.

Mouxiao Bian, Zhi Chen, Ruiyao Chen +8

Shanghai Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, Shanhai, China · Macau University of Science and Technology, Macau, China · First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China +1

LLM Safety Benchmarks Healthcare Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Language Model Evaluation Multimodal Model Evaluation

Aug 4, 2026cs.AI

Learning Clinical-Trial Strategy: Offline Policy Training for Decision Agents

Clinical development is sequential decision-making under uncertainty, where a sponsor must plan a portfolio of experiments from heterogeneous evidence. We study this setting by framing oncology clinical development as an offline decision-making problem in which an agent predicts the next six-month trial portfolio of an oncology drug program from information available at the decision date. To support this, we construct a temporal dataset that combines 31.7k heterogeneous public data records, including trial registries, regulatory reviews, sponsor filings, utilization data, and epidemiology, into 881 offline decision episodes across 45 historical programs. We compare four offline objectives: behavioral cloning, reward-weighted behavioral cloning, learned-reward training, and value-based implicit Q-learning against four frontier LLM agents that share a common date-gated retrieval scaffold across held-out drug, sponsor, drug-class, and temporal splits. Models trained offline outperform the non-fine-tuned baselines, particularly in the post-August 2025 contamination-clean holdout. Reward-weighted behavioral cloning performs the best, obtaining 46.2% indication F1 and 14.2% strict F1 against 25.0% and 2.1%, respectively, for the best-performing tool agent on each metric. These results suggest that structured offline learning can teach agents to plan clinical experiments.

William Bolton, Philip Torr

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom.

Clinical Decision-Making Imitation Learning Offline RL Oncology

Aug 4, 2026econ.TH

Optimal Liability Design for Medical AI

Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly integrated into medical decision-making, yet its liability implications remain complex, particularly when physicians differ in diagnostic skills and their quality is unobservable. This paper develops a principal-agent model in which a social planner designs medical liability to regulate a physician with private quality information who chooses between a standard treatment, a personalized judgment-based treatment, or following an imperfect AI recommendation. Our analysis yields several novel insights. First, we show that the optimal mechanism under asymmetric information is surprisingly simple: a uniform, one-size-fits-all liability level for all physician types who deviate from the standard of care. Despite physician heterogeneity, this simple policy often achieves the full-information first-best outcome, particularly when standard care is reliable or AI is highly accurate. Second, the relationship between AI accuracy and optimal liability is non-monotonic. Contrary to common intuition, better AI does not always imply more relaxed liability. As AI accuracy increases, the optimal liability either decreases monotonically or follows an inverted-U pattern, depending on the uncertainty of the standard treatment. Third, asymmetric information does not universally reduce social welfare. Welfare loss arises only when standard care is unreliable and AI accuracy is too low; even then, its magnitude follows an inverted U-shape, initially increasing as AI complicates the regulatory problem, but declining as more accurate AI helps mitigate it. Finally, we find that information asymmetry is a double-edged sword in the presence of AI, and greater transparency does not benefit all stakeholders equally.

Rui Mao, Tingliang Huang, Houcai Shen

School of Management & Engineering, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210093, China · Haslam College of Business, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA

Mechanism Design AI Accountability Clinical Decision-Making

Aug 4, 2026cs.CV

PDD-RRG: Posterior Diagnostic Decision for Study-level Radiology Report Generation

Automatic radiology report generation (RRG) aims to simulate the workflow of radiologists, assisting them in clinical diagnosis. However, existing methods often fall short in utilizing all information relevant to the examination, as is typically done in clinical practice. Although some works attempt to incorporate multi-view images and historical data, these additional inputs may sometimes lead to avoidable diagnostic errors on the contrary. To address these challenges, we introduce a decision-making stage after report generation for the first time and propose a Posterior Diagnostic Decision framework (PDD-RRG) to integrate potentially conflicting diagnoses. Specifically, we create various subsets of input data and utilize an existing RRG model to generate reports from different perspectives. Then the Bayesian posterior probability and the learned thresholds for each clinical observation are calculated to obtain an aggregated diagnostic conclusion, which is subsequently used to refine the generated report. Experiments on MIMIC-CXR demonstrate that our proposed PDD-RRG can effectively enhance the clinical efficacy of existing RRG models without any retraining.

Yang Yu, Yiming Ji, Bin Dai +4

School of Computer Science & Technology, Soochow University · Suzhou Institute of Biomedical Engineering and Technology · Jiangsu Key Lab of Language Computing, Suzhou

Radiology Report Generation Clinical Decision-Making

Aug 2, 2026cs.AI

High-Stakes Decisions with Language Models: Insights from Emergency Triage

High-stakes decisions under uncertainty, such as medical emergency triage, require more than accurate predictions. They depend on estimating the likelihood of alternative outcomes while explicitly weighing the consequences of different actions, principles that have long formed the foundation of medical diagnosis and decision making. Yet language models are increasingly used for high-stakes clinical recommendations without explicit specification of the utilities governing these decisions. Here we show that emergency triage with language models can be understood within a probabilistic decision framework, providing a case study of a broader decision-analytic paradigm for steering, evaluating, and deploying language models in high-stakes settings. Using clinical vignettes from a structured evaluation of a consumer triage system, we analyze recommendations for treatment under alternative utility functions that specify the relative costs of missed emergencies and unnecessary escalation. We find that capable language models adjust recommendations in response to stated utilities, revealing that the same underlying predictions can support markedly different decision policies. These findings show that effective deployment depends not only on improving predictions but also on making decision objectives explicit. More broadly, they suggest that language models for high-stakes applications should be understood and evaluated as probabilistic decision systems whose recommendations depend jointly on predictive performance and explicit utilities.

Khurram Yamin, Christopher Kelly, Bryan Wilder +1

Microsoft · Carnegie Mellon University

Clinical Triage Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Language Model Evaluation

Aug 2, 2026cs.CL

MedUPS: Towards Diagnostic Assistance in Uncommon Medical Cases with Large Language Models

Uncommon and off-guideline cases are difficult for clinical decision support, because physicians must make a series of management decisions under diagnostic uncertainty and rarely see the full case at once. Most large language model (LLM) benchmarks for medicine score only the final diagnosis, yet much of clinical care turns on the next appropriate action: the next test to order, the imaging study to obtain, the specialist to involve, or the differential to pursue. We introduce MedUPSQA, a dataset of 21,874 mid-stream clinical decision points built from 5,535 real case reports, and MedUPS, an alignment framework that supervises models on these intermediate decisions as they unfold along a patient's trajectory. We segment free-text case presentations into chronologically ordered, accumulating clinical chunks and align models to predict the next step with reinforcement learning (GRPO), using an external LLM-as-a-Judge reward. This objective mirrors how clinicians actually meet patients, reasoning forward from accumulating evidence toward the next decision, rather than committing to a final label. Across three backbones, mid-stream alignment raises next-step accuracy from 55.2 to 66.7 for Qwen3.6-27B, from 47.2 to 57.8 for Qwen3.5-9B, and from 37.8 to 44.4 for HuatuoGPT-3-8B, with 95% CI. In several model scales we test the objective improves accuracy more than scale, with smaller models surpassing larger, frontier models we evaluate. We further train supervised fine-tuning (SFT) baselines on the mid-stream task, SFT improves all backbones above base, indicating the target framwork carries signal independently of the optimizer. We release the dataset, code, and aligned checkpoints.

Ofir Ben Shoham, Oriel Perets, Nir Grinberg +1

Stein Faculty of Computer and Information Science Ben-Gurion University of the Negev

LLM Alignment Clinical Decision Support Clinical Decision-Making Clinical Prediction Medical LLMs

Jul 29, 2026cs.LG

From Unsupervised Subgroups to Hypothetical State-Intervention Policies: An Evaluation of Selected Subgrouping Methods in Observational Health Data

Conventional subgroup analyses can yield unstable and difficult-to-interpret conclusions, especially in observational biomedical data where each individual is observed under only one exposure state, true individual treatment effects are unavailable, and causal structure is uncertain. We investigate whether subgroups constructed from pretreatment characteristics, without using exposure, outcome, or estimated treatment-effect information, can serve as interpretable units for budget-constrained policy prioritization. We propose a framework combining causal-discovery-informed covariate selection, discovery-evaluation sample splitting, inductive unsupervised clustering, uncertainty-aware subgroup selection, and held-out doubly robust policy evaluation. We compare K-means, hard, membership-weighted, and stochastic Fuzzy C-means, Bayesian Gaussian mixture models, and a supervised causal-forest-derived CATE-tree comparator. Policies are evaluated under a 70% budget for hypothetical obesity-to-non-obesity and elevated-to-lower-glucose state shifts in the PIMA Indians Diabetes dataset and for a lifetime-smoking-history contrast in NHANES. The highest estimated ungated utilities were 0.799 for the BMI policy using Bayesian GMM, 0.735 for the glucose policy using hard or membership-weighted FCM, and 0.775 for the smoking-history policy using K-means. All paired 95% confidence intervals for policy-risk differences included zero, and no comparison remained statistically significant after Holm adjustment. Bayesian pooling generally preserved ungated allocations, whereas Empirical Bernstein gating was more conservative. Policies with similar estimated utility could nevertheless prioritize different individuals. The findings should be interpreted as assumption-dependent decision-support evidence for hypothetical state contrasts rather than proof of intervention benefit.

Vasundhara Acharya, Bulent Yener

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, USA

Clinical Decision-Making