Clinical Language Model Evaluation

LLMs can estimate Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores from speech in a zero-shot manner, but clinical deployment requires reliability across three dimensions: intra-model consistency, ASR robustness, and evidence faithfulness. We evaluate three LLMs (Phi-4, Gemma-2-9B, and Llama-3.1-8B) on 111 English-speaking participants using ground-truth transcripts and three Whisper ASR variants (Large, Medium, Small), with three independent runs per model-condition pair. We find that (i) Phi-4 and Gemma-2-9B achieve excellent intra-model consistency (ICC > 0.89) with minimal degradation under ASR; (ii) Llama-3.1-8B shows ASR-fragile consistency, with ICC dropping from 0.82 to 0.36 at 10% WER; (iii) predictive validity is largely preserved under ASR for robust models; and (iv) keyword groundedness exceeds 93% for Phi-4 and Gemma-2-9B but falls to 77-81% for Llama-3.1-8B. Inter-model keyword agreement is far lower than score-level agreement, revealing a score-evidence dissociation with implications for clinical interpretability.

Inpatient clinical reasoning is a sequential decision under partial observability: the clinician sees the admission so far and must choose the next action whose downstream consequences are not yet visible. Existing clinical-LLM evaluations and RL rewards signals collapse this into closed-form retrieval, clinical journey leakage, or unanchored LLM-as-judge scoring. We introduce CLR-voyance, a framework that reformulates inpatient reasoning as a Partially Observable Markov Decision Process (POMDP) and supervises it with rewards that are simultaneously outcome-grounded and clinician-validated. We instantiate the formulation as CLR-POMDP, which partitions successful patient journeys into a policy-visible past and an oracle-only future. Using the past information, an oracle LLM generates a case-specific query-answer pair, and the first adaptive rubric for clinical reasoning which is verifiable in the future of the patient journey. These rubrics are used for both post-training and evaluation of models for inpatient clinical reasoning. We post-train Qwen3-8B and MedGemma-4B with GRPO followed by model merging, yielding state-of-the-art inpatient clinical reasoning while retaining generalist capabilities. CLR-voyance-8B achieves 84.91% on CLR-POMDP, ahead of frontier medical reasoning models like GPT-5 (77.83%) and MedGemma-27B (66.66%) and has comparable or better performance on existing medical benchmarks. To ensure a clinically meaningful setting, we conduct a large-scale clinician alignment study, where physicians curate per-case rubrics, grade candidate responses, and provide blinded pairwise preferences of model reasoning. This study provides insights on clinical LLM-as-a-judge and clinical preference-model selection, which can inform the community at large. CLR-voyance has been deployed for 6+ months at a partner public hospital, drafting thousands of reasoning-heavy inpatient notes.

LLMs are increasingly used to make or support high-stakes decisions under uncertainty, where alignment depends not only on factual accuracy but on how models weigh tradeoffs between different outcomes. We present an empirical pipeline for estimating the implied preferences that an LLM's observed choices optimize: we elicit the model's probability distribution over unknowns along with the choice it would make for the decision task and then fit a discrete choice model to recover the cost function that best rationalizes the model's decisions. We show how this revealed-preference description allows rigorous evaluation of whether models behave in a consistently goal-directed way, whether they can verbalize a description of their objectives which matches their revealed decision policy, and whether prompting can reliably steer those policies to implement a user-specified cost function. We apply this evaluation across four medical diagnosis domains and multiple frontier and open-source models. We find that while many models have a nontrivial degree of internal coherence, they also have significant weaknesses in faithfully reporting or adopting preferences in response to user direction.

Accurately communicating the side effects of cancer treatments to cancer survivors is critical, particularly in settings such as informed consent, where clinicians must clearly and comprehensively convey potential treatment toxicities. However, this task remains challenging due to clinical knowledge deficits about adverse treatment effects and fragmentation across electronic health record (EHR) systems. Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to assist in this task, though their reliability in oncology survivorship contexts remains poorly understood. We present a deployment-oriented stress-testing framework for evaluating LLM-generated radiation side effect lists in breast cancer treatment and survivorship care. Using 21 breast cancer patient profiles, we construct paired patient clinical scenarios that differ only in radiotherapy regimens to evaluate seven instruction-tuned LLMs under multiple prompting regimes. We then compare LLM outputs to a clinician-curated reference derived from informed consent documents at two major academic medical centers and developed by a team including more than seven breast radiation oncologists. The reference maps radiation dose-fractionation, fields, and locations to associated toxicities, broken down by frequency and temporal onset. Across models, we reveal sensitivity to minor documentation changes, trade-offs between precision and recall, and systematic under-recall of rare and long-term side effects. When used alone, constraints on the number of side effects generated reduce precision, and grounding outputs in clinician-curated side effect lists substantially improves reliability and robustness. These findings highlight important limitations of LLM use in oncology and suggest practical design choices for safer and more informative survivorship-focused applications.

The growing demand for cognitive remediation therapy, combined with limited speech therapist availability, has accelerated the adoption of remote rehabilitation tools. These systems generate large volumes of interaction data that are difficult for clinicians to review efficiently. This paper investigates automated clinical report generation for avatar-guided, home-based cognitive remediation sessions in a low-resource setting with no reference reports. We present and compare two approaches: (1) a rule-based template system encoding speech therapy domain knowledge as explicit decision rules and validated templates, ensuring clinical reliability and traceability; and (2) a zero-shot LLM-based approach (GPT-4) aimed at more fluent and concise output. Both systems use identical pre-extracted, expert-validated structured variables, enabling a controlled factual comparison. Outputs were evaluated by eight speech therapists and final-year students using a nine-criterion questionnaire. Results reveal a clear trade-off between clinical reliability and linguistic quality. The template-based system scored higher on fluidity, coherence, and results presentation, while GPT-4 produced more concise output. Directional differences are consistent across evaluation dimensions, though no comparison reached statistical significance after correction, reflecting the scale constraints of expert clinical evaluation. Based on evaluator feedback, we derive eight design recommendations for clinical reporting systems in remote rehabilitation settings. More broadly, this work contributes a replicable methodology combining expert elicitation, taxonomy-driven generation, and multi-dimensional human evaluation for clinical NLG in low-resource settings, and illustrates how controlled comparisons can inform the responsible adoption of generative AI in healthcare.

The work in this paper evaluates zero-shot and few-shot large language models (LLMs) for safety-critical clinical action extraction using the CLIP discharge-note dataset, with particular emphasis on transitions of care and post-discharge patient safety. To manage the complexity of clinical documentation, we introduce a two-stage extraction framework that decomposes discharge notes, that are written in narrative form, into fine-grained, explicitly actionable clinical tasks through a staged prompting strategy. Our contributions include a systematic assessment of generative LLMs for clinical action extraction, a detailed comparison between general-purpose LLMs and task-specific supervised BERT-based models, and an analysis of annotation inconsistencies across different action categories. We show that contemporary LLMs achieve performance comparable to or exceeding supervised models on binary actionability detection, while supervised baselines retain a meaningful advantage on fine-grained multi-label category classification, despite the absence of task-specific fine-tuning and under strict data-privacy constraints. Qualitative error analysis reveals that many failures stem from misalignment between model reasoning and dataset annotation conventions, particularly in cases involving implicit clinical actions and rigid structural labeling rules. These results indicate that reported performance reflects model limitations due to lack of clinical reasoning, that is not captured by plain annotations. Labels without rationales make it impossible to distinguish clinical reasoning failures from annotation convention mismatches. Advancing clinical NLP requires reasoning-annotated datasets that document why specific spans are actionable, not merely which spans were labeled, enabling proper evaluation of model clinical understanding.

Formulating a treatment plan is inherently a complex reasoning and refinement task rather than a simple generation problem. However, existing large language models (LLMs) mainly rely on one-shot output without explicit verification, which may result in rough, incomplete, and potentially unsafe treatment plans. To address these limitations, we propose TheraAgent, an agentic framework that replaces one-shot generation with an iterative generate-judge-refine pipeline. By mirroring the actual reasoning process of human experts who iteratively revise treatment plans, our framework progressively transforms coarse and incomplete drafts into precise, comprehensive, and safer therapeutic regimens. To facilitate the critical judge component, we introduce TheraJudge, a treatment-specific evaluation module integrated into the inference loop to enforce clinical standards. Experiments show TheraAgent achieves state-of-the-art results on HealthBench, leading in Accuracy and Completeness. In expert evaluations, it attains an 86% win rate against physicians, with superior Targeting and Harm Control. Moreover, the highly agreement between TheraJudge and HealthBench evaluations confirms the reliability of our framework.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving. When the available information is insufficient to support a reliable answer, models should request clarification or abstain rather than provide unsupported responses. Existing medical benchmarks, however, typically assume that complete information is available upfront. We introduce Safe-Psych, a sequential benchmark for evaluating how LLMs handle evolving diagnostic uncertainty in clinical psychiatry. Safe-Psych contains over 1,000 real-world psychiatric clinical notes segmented to simulate incremental evidence disclosure, with psychiatrist-derived action labels at each stage: DIAGNOSE, CLARIFY, or ABSTAIN. We evaluate multiple state-of-the-art LLMs in full-information and sequential settings. Our findings show that capability does not ensure calibration: even strong models struggle under incomplete clinical information, with under-abstention exceeding 60% for most models and safety-aware prompting reducing premature commitment only by shifting errors toward excessive abstention. In sequential evaluation, models frequently diagnose before sufficient evidence is available and rarely seek clarification unless explicitly prompted; these premature diagnoses are less accurate than on-time diagnoses. Overall, Safe-Psych reveals a limitation across the evaluated models: recognizing when clinical evidence is incomplete and additional information is needed. We release Safe-Psych to support research on improving LLM safety in healthcare.

Clinical named entity recognition from dental progress notes is challenging because documentation is highly unstructured, domain-specific, and often privacy-sensitive. We developed a locally deployable framework that enables small language models to self-generate, verify, refine, and evaluate entity-specific prompts for extracting multiple clinical entities from dental notes. Using 1,200 annotated notes, we evaluated candidate open-weight models with multi-prompt ensemble inference and further adapted selected models using QLoRA-based supervised fine-tuning and direct preference optimization. Model performance varied substantially, highlighting the need for task-specific evaluation rather than reliance on generic benchmarks. Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct achieved the strongest baseline performance. After DPO, Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct and Llama-3.1-8B-Instruct achieved micro/macro F1 scores of 0.864/0.837 and 0.806/0.797, respectively. These findings suggest that automated prompt optimization combined with lightweight preference-based post-training can support scalable clinical information extraction using locally deployed small language models.

Clinical LLMs are often scaled by increasing model size, context length, retrieval complexity, or inference-time compute, with the implicit expectation that higher accuracy implies safer behavior. This assumption is incomplete in medicine, where a few confident, high-risk, or evidence-contradicting errors can matter more than average benchmark performance. We introduce SaFE-Scale, a framework for measuring how clinical LLM safety changes across model scale, evidence quality, retrieval strategy, context exposure, and inference-time compute. To instantiate this framework, we introduce RadSaFE-200, a Radiology Safety-Focused Evaluation benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction. We evaluated 34 locally deployed LLMs across six deployment conditions: closed-book prompting (zero-shot), clean evidence, conflict evidence, standard RAG, agentic RAG, and max-context prompting. Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%, contradiction from 12.7% to 2.3%, and dangerous overconfidence from 8.0% to 1.6%. Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile: agentic RAG improved accuracy over standard RAG and reduced contradiction, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated. Max-context prompting increased latency without closing the safety gap, and additional inference-time compute produced only limited gains. Worst-case analysis showed that clinically consequential errors concentrated in a small subset of questions. Clinical LLM safety is therefore not a passive consequence of scaling, but a deployment property shaped by evidence quality, retrieval design, context construction, and collective failure behavior.

Emergency department triage assigns patients an acuity score that determines treatment priority, and clinical evidence documents persistent gender disparities in human acuity assessment. As hospitals pilot large language models (LLMs) as triage decision support, a critical question is whether these models reproduce or mitigate known biases. We present EQUITRIAGE, a fairness audit of LLM-based ESI assignment evaluating five models (Gemini-3-Flash, Nemotron-3-Super, DeepSeek-V3.1, Mistral-Small-3.2, GPT-4.1-Nano) across 374,275 evaluations on 18,714 MIMIC-IV-ED vignettes under four prompt strategies. Of 9,368 originals, 9,346 are paired with a gender-swapped counterfactual. All five models produced flip rates above a pre-registered 5% threshold (9.9% to 43.8%). Two showed directional female undertriage (DeepSeek F/M 2.15:1, Gemini 1.34:1); two were near-parity; one had high sensitivity with weak male-direction asymmetry. DeepSeek's directional bias coexisted with a low outcome-linked calibration gap (0.013 against MIMIC-IV admission), a Chouldechova-style dissociation between within-group calibration and between-pair counterfactual invariance. Demographic blinding reduced Gemini's flip rate to 0.5%; an age-preserving blind variant left DeepSeek with residual F/M 1.25, implicating age as a residual channel. Chain-of-thought prompting degraded accuracy for all five models. A two-model ablation reveals opposite underlying mechanisms for the same directional phenotype: in Gemini the signal is emergent in the combined name+gender swap, while in DeepSeek the gender token alone carries it. EQUITRIAGE shows that group parity, counterfactual invariance, and gender calibration are distinct fairness properties, that intervention effectiveness is model-dependent, and that per-model counterfactual auditing should precede clinical deployment.

Question: Does atomic fact-checking, which decomposes AI treatment recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guideline documents, increase clinician trust compared to traditional explainability approaches? Findings: In this randomized trial of 356 clinicians generating 7,476 trust ratings, atomic fact-checking produced a large effect on trust (Cohen's d = 0.94), increasing the proportion of clinicians expressing trust from 26.9% to 66.5%. Traditional transparency mechanisms showed a dose-response gradient of improvement over baseline (d = 0.25 to 0.50). Meaning: Decomposing AI recommendations into individually verifiable claims linked to source guidelines produces substantially higher clinician trust than traditional explainability approaches in high-stakes clinical decisions.

This paper presents the joint participation of the BIT.UA and AAUBS groups in the ArchEHR-QA 2026 shared task, which focuses on clinical question answering and evidence grounding in a low-resource setting. Due to the absence of training data and the strict data privacy constraints inherent to the healthcare domain (e.g. GDPR), we investigate the capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) without weight updates. We evaluate several state-of-the-art proprietary models and locally deployable open-source alternatives using various prompt engineering strategies, including task decomposition, Chain-of-Thought, and in-context learning. Furthermore, we explore majority voting and LLM-as-a-judge ensembling techniques to maximize predictive robustness. Our results demonstrate that while proprietary models exhibit strong resilience to prompt variations, domain-adapted open-source models (such as MedGemma 3 27B) achieve highly competitive performance when paired with the right prompt. Overall, our prompt-based approach proved highly effective, securing 1st place in Subtask 4 (evidence citation alignment) and 3rd place in Subtask 3 (patient-friendly answer generation). All code, results, and prompts are available on our GitHub repository: https://github.com/bioinformatics-ua/ArchEHR-QA-2026.

Mental-health dialogue models are increasingly evaluated by AI-based evaluators, yet these evaluators often treat surface empathy, supportiveness, or fluency as evidence of safety. In this paper, we study a hidden failure mode that we call implicit sycophancy: a response may appear empathetic while implicitly reinforcing catastrophizing, avoidance, hopeless prediction, or CBT-style labeling. To examine this problem, we introduce a diagnostic benchmark for implicit-sycophancy detection, built from three representative mental-health dialogue sources covering everyday peer support, counseling-style emotional support, and crisis-oriented interaction, and further construct a leakage-audited clean single-response matched benchmark with 500 contexts and 1,500 matched response windows. We then propose Dynamic Emotional Signature Graphs (DESG), a structured offline audit framework that separates LLM-based state extraction from final scoring and evaluates clinical direction through semantic, affective, and cognitive-distortion state transitions rather than free-form LLM judgment. Unlike metadata, surface-style, lexical, embedding, and rubric-LLM baselines, DESG scores the direction of clinical-state change induced by a response; on the leakage-audited clean matched benchmark, DESG-StateRisk improves over the strongest non-DESG baseline by 0.0488 macro-F1 and achieves the best harmful-risk detection result. These results suggest that evaluating implicit sycophancy requires explicit clinical-state modeling together with leakage checks, shortcut controls, and competitive baselines.

Modeling latent clinical constructs from unconstrained clinical interactions is a unique challenge in affective computing. We present ADAPTS (Agentic Decomposition for Automated Protocol-agnostic Tracking of Symptoms), a framework for automated rating of depression and anxiety severity using a mixture-of-agents LLM architecture. This approach decomposes long-form clinical interviews into symptom-specific reasoning tasks, producing auditable justifications while preserving temporal and speaker alignment. Generalization was evaluated across two independent datasets ($N=204$) with distinct interview structures. On high-discrepancy interviews, automated ratings approximated expert benchmarks ($\text{absolute error}=22$) more closely than original human ratings ($\text{absolute error}=26$). Implementing an ``extended'' protocol that incorporates qualitative clinical conventions significantly stabilized ratings, with absolute agreement reaching $\text{ICC(2,1)} = 0.877$. These findings suggest that the ADAPTS framework enables promising evaluations of psychiatric severity. While the current implementation is purely text-based, the underlying architecture is readily extensible to multimodal inputs, including acoustic and visual features. By approximating expert-level precision in a protocol-agnostic manner, this framework provides a foundation for objective and scalable psychiatric assessment, especially in resource-limited settings.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly proposed for clinical decision support including multilingual diagnosis in low-resource settings. However, their reliability, calibration and safety characteristics remain insufficiently understood for structured, high-risk tasks. We present a system-level analysis of multilingual orthopedic diagnosis from free-text clinical notes in English, Hindi and Punjabi. We evaluate three modeling regimes: (i) task-aligned multilingual transformer encoders, (ii) a task-fine-tuned baseline (DistilBERT), and (iii) a domain-adaptive architecture tailored to orthopedic text (IndicBERT-HPA). These models are compared with zero-shot, instruction-tuned LLMs to assess suitability for structured diagnostic classification. Results indicate that while LLMs exhibit strong linguistic fluency, they show unstable calibration and reduced reliability under structured multilingual conditions, particularly in low-resource languages. These findings are specific to zero-shot evaluation and do not imply limitations of fine-tuned models. Domain-adaptive specialization substantially improves cross-lingual discrimination and confidence behavior. IndicBERT-HPA, with language-specific orthopedic adapter heads achieves consistently strong performance across six diagnostic categories and more predictable deployment characteristics than task-only adaptation. Building on these observations, we outline a conceptual deterministic agent-based validation framework for future implementation, formalizing evidence checks, language-sensitive validation and conservative human-in-the-loop gating. Reliable multilingual clinical decision support requires specialized architecture, explicit reliability analysis, and structured validation for safety-critical systems.

We introduce PhysicianBench, a benchmark for evaluating LLM agents on physician tasks grounded in real clinical setting within electronic health record (EHR) environments. Existing medical agent benchmarks primarily focus on static knowledge recall, single-step atomic actions, or action intent without verifiable execution against the environment. As a result, they fail to capture the long-horizon, composite workflows that characterize real clinical systems. PhysicianBench comprises 100 long-horizon tasks adapted from real consultation cases between primary care and subspecialty physicians, with each task independently reviewed by a separate panel of physicians. Tasks are instantiated in an EHR environment with real patient records and accessed through the same standard APIs used by commercial EHR vendors. Tasks span 21 specialties (e.g., cardiology, endocrinology, oncology, psychiatry) and diverse workflow types (e.g., diagnosis interpretation, medication prescribing, treatment planning), requiring an average of 27 tool calls per task. Solving each task requires retrieving data across encounters, reasoning over heterogeneous clinical information, executing consequential clinical actions, and producing clinical documentation. Each task is decomposed into structured checkpoints (670 in total across the benchmark) capturing distinct stages of completion graded by task-specific scripts with execution-grounded verification. Across 13 proprietary and open-source LLM agents, the best-performing model achieves only 46% success rate (pass@1), while open-source models reach at most 19%, revealing a substantial gap between current agent capabilities and the demands of real-world clinical workflows. PhysicianBench provides a realistic and execution-grounded benchmark for measuring progress toward autonomous clinical agents.

AI language technologies (AILTs), increasingly enabled by large language models (LLMs), are becoming embedded in multilingual healthcare workflows for translation, rewriting, documentation, interpreting, and messaging in language-discordant settings. Yet fluent output is not the same as clinically safe or equitable communication: performance varies across languages, accents, tasks, and workflows, and efficiency gains can hide errors, reduce traceability, and shift responsibility across clinicians, translators, interpreters, and health systems. This narrative review synthesises recent peer-reviewed evidence across written communication, spoken communication, and emerging agentic workflows. Using the Human-Centered AI Language Technology (HCAILT) lens, it examines capabilities, evaluation practices, implementation patterns, and recurrent errors through reliability, safety culture, and trustworthiness. We identify key convergences and contradictions in the literature and propose seven grand challenges for the next phase of research and deployment. Progress, we argue, requires not only better models but also accountable sociotechnical design, calibrated human oversight, and stronger collaboration across MT/NLP, translation studies, HCI, clinical practice, implementation science, and policy.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) for medical applications remains challenging due to benchmark saturation, limited data accessibility, and insufficient coverage of relevant tasks. Existing suites have either saturated, heavily depend on restricted datasets, or lack comprehensive model coverage. We introduce Medmarks, a fully open-source evaluation suite with 30 benchmarks spanning question answering, information extraction, medical calculations, and open-ended clinical reasoning. We perform a systematic evaluation of 61 models across 71 configurations using verifiable metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge. Our results show that frontier reasoning models (Gemini 3 Pro Preview, GPT-5.1, & GPT-5.2) achieve the highest performance across both benchmarks, most frontier proprietary models are significantly more token efficient than open-weight alternatives, medically fine-tuned models outperform their generalist counterparts, and that models are susceptible to answer-order bias (particularly smaller models and Grok 4). A subset of our evals (Medmarks-T) can be directly used as reinforcement learning environments to post-train LLMs for medical reasoning. Code is available at https://github.com/MedARC-AI/Medmarks

Brazil's Unified Health System (SUS) relies on official clinical guidelines that define diagnostic criteria, treatments, dosages, and monitoring procedures for over 200 million citizens. Yet current LLMs perform poorly on this guideline-specific knowledge, and no benchmark evaluates clinical recall grounded in Brazilian Portuguese protocols. We address this gap by adapting Qwen2.5-14B-Instruct to the Brazilian clinical domain. From 178 official guidelines (~5.4M tokens), we generate ~70M tokens of synthetic data in three formats -- rephrases, wiki-style articles, and question-answer pairs -- using four generator LLMs. We then apply continual pre-training followed by Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO). We introduce HealthBench-BR, with 1,780 balanced true/false clinical assertions, and PCDT-QA, with 890 open-ended clinical questions scored by an LLM judge. Our best model achieves 83.9% on HealthBench-BR and 85.4% on PCDT-QA, outperforming GPT-5.2, Claude Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and Google AI Overview's web-grounded RAG despite having only 14B parameters. Ablations show that generator diversity and reinforcement learning are critical to these gains. We release all datasets, benchmarks, and model weights to support reproducible clinical NLP research for Brazilian Portuguese. Code, data, and model weights are available at https://github.com/hugoabonizio/clinical-protocols-br

Medical large language model (LLM) evaluations rely on simplified, exam-style benchmarks that rarely reflect the ambiguity of real-world medical inquiries. We introduce the CLinical Evaluation of Ambiguity and Reliability (CLEAR) framework, which assesses how decision-space presentation, ambiguity, and uncertainty affect LLMs' reasoning on medical benchmarks. CLEAR systematically perturbs (1) the number of plausible answer options, (2) the presence of a ground truth or abstention option, and (3) the semantic framing of answer options. Applying CLEAR on three benchmarks evaluated across 17 LLMs reveals three notable limitations of existing evaluation methods. First, increasing the number of plausible answers degrades a model's ability to identify the correct answer and abstain against incorrect ones. Second, this lack of caution intensifies as the framing of abstention shifts from assertive rejection like "None of the Above" to uncertainty admission like "I don't know" (IDK). Notably, just including IDK in the answer space increases incorrect answer selections. Lastly, we formalize the performance gap between identifying the correct answer and abstaining from incorrect ones as the humility deficit, which worsens with model scale. Our findings reveal limitations in standard medical benchmarks and underscore that scaling alone does not resolve LLM reliability issues.

Millions of clinicians use ChatGPT to support clinical care, but evaluations of the most common use cases in model-clinician conversations are limited. We introduce HealthBench Professional, an open benchmark for evaluating large language models on real tasks that clinicians bring to ChatGPT in the course of their work. The benchmark is organized around three common use cases central to clinical practice: care consult, writing and documentation, and medical research. Each example includes a physician-authored conversation with ChatGPT for Clinicians and is scored via rubrics written and iteratively adjudicated by three or more physicians across three phases. HealthBench Professional examples were carefully selected for quality, representativeness, and difficulty for OpenAI's current frontier models, to enable continued measurement of progress. Difficult examples for recent OpenAI models were enriched by roughly 3.5 times relative to the candidate pool of 15,079 examples. Additionally, about one-third of examples involve physicians conducting deliberate adversarial testing of models. As a strong baseline, we also collected human physician responses for all tasks (unbounded time, specialist-matched, web access). The best scoring system, GPT-5.4 in ChatGPT for Clinicians, outperforms base GPT-5.4, all other models, and human physicians. We hope HealthBench Professional provides the healthcare AI community a measure to track frontier model progress in real-world clinical tasks and build systems that clinicians can trust to improve care.

Accurate and consistent Emergency Severity Index (ESI) assignment remains a persistent challenge in emergency departments, where highly variable free-text triage documentation contributes to mistriage and workflow inefficiencies. This study evaluates whether open-source small language models (SLMs) can serve as reliable, privacy-preserving decision-support tools for clinical triage. We systematically compared multiple SLMs across diverse prompting pipelines and found that clinical vignettes, concise summaries of triage narratives, yielded the most accurate predictions. The SLM, Qwen2.5-7B, demonstrated the strongest balance of accuracy, stability, and computational efficiency. Through large-scale domain adaptation using expert-curated and silver-standard pediatric triage data, fine-tuned Qwen2.5-7B models substantially reduced discordance and clinically significant errors, outperforming all baseline SLMs and advanced proprietary large language models (LLMs, e.g., GPT-4o). These findings highlight the feasibility of institution-specific SLMs for reliable, privacy-preserving ESI decision support and underscore the importance of targeted fine-tuning over more complex inference strategies.

Patient simulators are gaining traction in mental health training by providing scalable exposure to complex and sensitive patient interactions. Simulating depressed patients is challenging, as safety constraints and high patient variability complicate simulations and underscore the need for simulators that capture diverse and realistic patient behaviors. However, existing evaluations heavily rely on LLM-judges with poorly specified prompts and do not assess behavioral diversity. We introduce PSI-Bench, an automatic evaluation framework that provides interpretable, clinically meaningful diagnostics of depression patient simulator behavior across turn-, dialogue-, and population-level dimensions. Using PSI-Bench, we benchmark seven LLMs across two simulator frameworks and find that simulators produce overly long, lexically diverse responses, show reduced variability, and move through therapeutic stages and toward positive valence too quickly. We also show that the simulation framework has a larger impact on fidelity than the model scale. Results from a human study demonstrate that our benchmark is strongly aligned with judgments of mental health professionals. Our work reveals key limitations of current depression patient simulators and provides an interpretable, extensible benchmark to guide future simulator design and evaluation.

People increasingly turn to general-purpose AI chatbots for advice about emotional and mental health problems, but the ability of these systems to recognize and appropriately triage psychiatric emergencies remains under-characterized. We evaluated psychiatric triage performance in 15 frontier AI chatbots using 112 clinical vignettes spanning four urgency levels, from routine care to immediate emergency assessment. In each trial (1680 total), a chatbot received a single user message conveying all triage-relevant information from one vignette and recommended a timeframe for care. The primary outcome was emergency under-triage; secondary outcomes included triage accuracy and the direction of errors. Vignettes and user messages were generated using a clinician-verified LLM pipeline. Across 415 emergency trials, 23 were under-triaged (5.5%; 95% CI 1.8-15.9). Overall accuracy, averaged across urgency levels, ranged from 42.0% to 71.8% across chatbots and was lowest for intermediate cases (19.6%; 95% CI 11.7-28.1). Every chatbot showed a net over-triage bias; overall, 763 of 786 incorrect assignments (97.1%) were more urgent than the prespecified triage level. The error pattern was similar when predictions were assessed against clinician ratings: 35 of 430 trials involving vignettes rated as emergencies by at least 75% of clinicians were under-triaged (8.1%). AI chatbots recognized most psychiatric emergencies but still missed clinically important cases and frequently over-triaged less urgent presentations. Further evaluations should examine how triage performance changes when clinically relevant information must be elicited through conversation.

While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for mental health applications, recent studies reveal that they can exhibit stigma toward individuals with psychological conditions. Existing evaluations of this stigma primarily rely on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), which fail to capture the biases embedded within the models' underlying logic. In this paper, we analyze the intermediate reasoning steps of LLMs to uncover hidden stigmatizing language and the internal rationales driving it. We leverage clinical expertise to categorize common patterns of stigmatizing language directed at individuals with psychological conditions and use this framework to identify and tag problematic statements in LLM reasoning. Furthermore, we rate the severity of these statements, distinguishing between overt prejudice and more subtle, less immediately harmful biases. To broaden the reasoning domain and capture a wider array of patterns, we also extend an existing mental health stigma benchmark by incorporating additional psychological conditions. Our findings demonstrate that evaluating model reasoning not only exposes substantially more stigma than traditional MCQ-based methods but also helps identify the flaws in the LLMs' logic and their understanding of mental health conditions.

Objective. Clinical AI documentation systems require evaluation methodologies that are clinically valid, economically viable, and sensitive to iterative changes. Methods requiring expert review per scoring instance are too slow and expensive for safe, iterative deployment. We present a case-specific, clinician-authored rubric methodology for clinical AI evaluation and examine whether LLM-generated rubrics can approximate clinician agreement. Materials and Methods. Twenty clinicians authored 1,646 rubrics for 823 clinical cases (736 real-world, 87 synthetic) across primary care, psychiatry, oncology, and behavioral health. Each rubric was validated by confirming that an LLM-based scoring agent consistently scored clinician-preferred outputs higher than rejected ones. Seven versions of an EHR-embedded AI agent for clinicians were evaluated across all cases. Results. Clinician-authored rubrics discriminated effectively between high- and low-quality outputs (median score gap: 82.9%) with high scoring stability (median range: 0.00%). Median scores improved from 84% to 95%. In later experiments, clinician-LLM ranking agreement (tau: 0.42-0.46) matched or exceeded clinician-clinician agreement (tau: 0.38-0.43), attributable to both ceiling compression and LLM rubric improvement. Discussion. This convergence supports incorporating LLM rubrics alongside clinician-authored ones. At roughly 1,000 times lower cost, LLM rubrics enable substantially greater evaluation coverage, while continued clinical authorship grounds evaluation in expert judgment. Ceiling compression poses a methodological challenge for future inter-rater agreement studies. Conclusion. Case-specific rubrics offer a path for clinical AI evaluation that preserves expert judgment while enabling automation at three orders lower cost. Clinician-authored rubrics establish the baseline against which LLM rubrics are validated.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed, yet their outputs can be highly sensitive to routine, non-adversarial variation in how users phrase queries, a gap not well addressed by existing red-teaming efforts. We propose Green Shielding, a user-centric agenda for building evidence-backed deployment guidance by characterizing how benign input variation shifts model behavior. We operationalize this agenda through the CUE criteria: benchmarks with authentic Context, reference standards and metrics that capture true Utility, and perturbations that reflect realistic variations in the Elicitation of model behavior. Guided by the PCS framework and developed with practicing physicians, we instantiate Green Shielding in medical diagnosis through HealthCareMagic-Diagnosis (HCM-Dx), a benchmark of patient-authored queries, together with structured reference diagnosis sets and clinically grounded metrics for evaluating differential diagnosis lists. We also study perturbation regimes that capture routine input variation and show that prompt-level factors shift model behavior along clinically meaningful dimensions. Across multiple frontier LLMs, these shifts trace out Pareto-like tradeoffs. In particular, neutralization, which removes common user-level factors while preserving clinical content, increases plausibility and yields more concise, clinician-like differentials, but reduces coverage of highly likely and safety-critical conditions. Together, these results show that interaction choices can systematically shift task-relevant properties of model outputs and support user-facing guidance for safer deployment in high-stakes domains. Although instantiated here in medical diagnosis, the agenda extends naturally to other decision-support settings and agentic AI systems.

Multiple myeloma is managed through sequential lines of therapy over years to decades, with each decision depending on cumulative disease history distributed across dozens to hundreds of heterogeneous clinical documents. Whether LLM-based systems can synthesise this evidence at a level approaching expert agreement has not been established. A retrospective evaluation was conducted on longitudinal clinical records of 811 myeloma patients treated at a tertiary centre (2001-2026), covering 44,962 documents and 1,334,677 laboratory values, with external validation on MIMIC-IV. An agentic reasoning system was compared against single-pass retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), iterative RAG, and full-context input on 469 patient-question pairs from 48 templates at three complexity levels. Reference labels came from double annotation by four oncologists with senior haematologist adjudication. Iterative RAG and full-context input converged on a shared ceiling (75.4% vs 75.8%, p = 1.00). The agentic system reached 79.6% concordance (95% CI 76.4-82.8), exceeding both baselines (+3.8 and +4.2 pp; p = 0.006 and 0.007). Gains rose with question complexity, reaching +9.4 pp on criteria-based synthesis (p = 0.032), and with record length, reaching +13.5 pp in the top decile (n = 10). The system error rate (12.2%) was comparable to expert disagreement (13.6%), but severity was inverted: 57.8% of system errors were clinically significant versus 18.8% of expert disagreements. Agentic reasoning was the only approach to exceed the shared ceiling, with gains concentrated on the most complex questions and longest records. The greater clinical consequence of residual system errors indicates that prospective evaluation in routine care is required before these findings translate into patient benefit.

Large language models are being deployed as mental health support agents at scale, yet only 16% of LLM-based chatbot interventions have undergone rigorous clinical efficacy testing, and simulations reveal psychological deterioration in over one-third of cases. We evaluate four generative models on 250 Prolonged Exposure (PE) therapy scenarios and 146 CBT cognitive restructuring exercises (plus 29 severity-escalated variants), scored by a three-judge LLM panel. All models scored near-perfectly on surface acknowledgment (~0.91-1.00) while therapeutic appropriateness collapsed to 0.22-0.33 at the highest severity for three of four models, with protocol fidelity reaching zero for two. Under CBT severity escalation, one model's task completeness dropped from 92% to 71% while the frontier model's safety-interference score fell from 0.99 to 0.61. We identify a systematic, modality-spanning failure: RLHF safety alignment disrupts the therapeutic mechanism of action by grounding patients during imaginal exposure, offering false reassurance, inserting crisis resources into controlled exercises, and refusing to challenge distorted cognitions mentioning self-harm in PE; and through task abandonment or safety-preamble insertion during CBT cognitive restructuring. These findings motivate a five-axis evaluation framework (protocol fidelity, hallucination risk, behavioral consistency, crisis safety, demographic robustness), mapped onto FDA SaMD and EU AI Act requirements. We argue that no AI mental health system should proceed to deployment without passing multi-axis evaluation across all five dimensions.