Clinician Trust

Follow this topic Ask about this topic

Momentum

9 papers in the last four weeks, against 1 the four weeks before. 0.1% of all new papers.

Jul 6Week of Sep 21

Latest papers 39

Sep 29, 2026cs.LG

Role-guided Speaker Deletion Verification in Clinical Psychiatry Speech Recordings with Audio Language Models

Clinical research in psychiatry increasingly relies on large scale collection of spoken language data to identify acoustic and linguistic biomarkers. Yet evolving consent and protocol requirements can oblige investigators to remove a designated speaker from multi-speaker recordings and to verify said removal at a scale infeasible for manual review of entire corpora. We study this verification problem for role-driven dyadic clinical dialogue in psychiatry and investigate it with two parallel, symmetric pipelines: confirming that clinician speech has been removed from psychiatric interview recordings, and confirming that patient speech has been removed from the same recordings. Each pipeline redacts the raw audio for its target role and then scans the surviving output with audio-language and large-language models to identify missed deletions. We evaluate this approach on a corpus of 48 dyadic recordings drawn from psychiatry settings, testing four open-weight models in an inference-only setting: Gemma-4-12B, Gemma-4-31B, Nemotron-3-Nano, and Nemotron-3-Nano-Omni. A disjunctive OR ensemble over fourteen model-view configurations had a combined F1 of 0.478 (precision 0.330, recall 0.870), an improvement over individual model estimates driven by recall gains that point to substantial complementarity across models and context views.

Joseph T Colonel, Daniel Katzman, Kelsey Kirker +6

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, Department of Psychiatry, New York, NY, USA

Speaker Clinician Trust Cognitive Diagnosis Linguistics

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.

Xueting Fang, Zehui Li, Yang Yang +5

Zhejiang University · Imperial College London · Nanchang University +2

Clinician Trust Diagnostic Benchmark Diagnosis

Sep 28, 2026cs.AI

Right Words, Wrong Moment: A Clinician-Grounded Analysis of Distress in 19,930 Conversations between Young People and ChatGPT

Young people increasingly turn to General-Purpose Conversational Agents (GPCAs), such as ChatGPT, in moments of distress. We examine young adults' (ages 18-25) experiences using ChatGPT. We first collected 19,930 ChatGPT conversations and survey data from 158 young adults. We then selected five example conversations reflecting user distress. Finally, we asked ten clinicians to review those five conversations. We found distressed participants reported greater emotional engagement with ChatGPT and greater behavioral change from using it than their peers. When they turned to ChatGPT in moments of acute distress, ChatGPT was quick to give overly dramatic responses and excessive action-oriented suggestions. Clinicians endorsed ChatGPT's availability and much of its wording, but identified seven process failures, such as prematurely jumping to solutions. We translated clinicians' feedback into design guidelines following three stages: 1) asking about safety, 2) de-escalating intensity to restore emotional regulation, and 3) exploring concerns without agreeing with them.

Marx Wang, Ella Zhang, Cameron Tan +11

University of Washington, United States · University of Oxford, United Kingdom · Stanford University, United States +2

Distress Clinician Trust Children

Sep 24, 2026cs.AI

A Living Benchmark for Information Retrieval from Electronic Health Records

Large language model (LLM)-based clinical assistants are increasingly being integrated into electronic health record (EHR) systems, transforming how clinicians retrieve and synthesize information from patient records. Their safety and utility depend on rigorous evaluation, yet existing benchmarks are manually curated, costly to update, and rapidly become obsolete with evolving technological advancements. We present a scalable framework that automatically generates question--answer pairs from longitudinal EHR notes. Nineteen clinicians validate the benchmark generator, producing the Benchmark for Retrieving Information in EHRs (BRIE), a continuously maintainable evaluation dataset. Across nine LLMs and five inference strategies, state-of-the-art systems frequently omit clinically important information, particularly for questions requiring synthesis across multiple documents and encounters. Because the generator itself is validated, BRIE supports evaluations that static benchmarks cannot, including the generation of multiple answers that reflect variation in clinician reasoning for robust performance assessment and continuously refreshing benchmark content to guard against leakage. Our results demonstrate that scalable benchmark generation enables rigorous, up-to-date evaluation of clinical LLMs as they are deployed in rapidly evolving healthcare settings.

Jordan L. Cahoon, Chloe O. Stanwyck, Sulaiman Somani +23

Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA · Department of Pathology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA · Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA +6

Electronic Health Records Clinician Trust Benchmark Saturation

Sep 23, 2026cs.CL

Can Jev Judge Radiology Reports? Evaluating a System One Model for Clinical Factuality

An AI-generated radiology report can resemble a physician's report while omitting an abnormality, adding an unsupported finding, or reversing its presence. Measuring these factual differences is essential for evaluating report generators. We study Jev, a System One decision model, as a simple, low-cost judge of agreement with physician-written reference reports. Our evaluator checks whether each statement is supported by the other report and combines these judgments in both directions to capture unsupported claims and omissions. A single-question configuration reaches Kendall correlations of 0.573 on RadEvalX and 0.398 on RadEvalExpert with expert error counts, outperforming an open natural language inference judge under matched decomposition and aggregation. One support question per statement retains similar expert agreement to seven while using 43-45% fewer judgment input tokens. At the documented API price, judgments cost under three cents per hundred report pairs, excluding local decomposition. In a separate controlled-error test, Jev detects false negation with an AUROC of 0.977. Local RadMatch achieves stronger agreement on clinically significant errors in both expert datasets and on total errors in the shared RadEvalExpert subset. Finding-count and error-scope analyses show that benchmark agreement reflects report size and error definitions as well as medical error detection. These results support Jev as a practical judgment component for measuring factual differences in generated radiology reports and identify where more elaborate evaluation remains valuable.

Jiaju Huang, Hao Yang, Xinyu Ma +6

Intelligent Medical Computing Laboratory, Faculty of Applied Sciences, Macao Polytechnic University · Department of Radiology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, the Netherlands · Department of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, the Netherlands

Radiology Report Generation Clinician Trust Human Judgment Facts

Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

KnowBench: Effort Reduction as a Unified, Deployment-Grounded Benchmark for Clinical AI

Clinical AI systems are evaluated with instruments built for research settings (reference-based similarity metrics and expert rubric panels) that measure resemblance to an artifact rather than reduction of a burden. We introduce KnowBench, pioneered by Knowtex, whose unifying metric is Effort Reduction (ER): the proportion of system-generated clinical work product accepted by the responsible clinician under expert and safety review. ER is defined once and instantiated per task across the administrative workload clinical AI automates: visit notes, diagnosis and billing codes, orders, EHR chart summarization, patient after-visit summaries, and clinical decision support. In every instantiation the construction is identical: the clinician's review-and-attestation event is the ground truth, every accepted unit is work the system completed, and every correction is residual effort returned to the clinician. The primary contribution of this paper is the benchmark itself: the metric, its degenerate cases, and a reporting protocol under which ER claims are auditable and cross-system comparable. Alongside it we report an initial headline measurement from the documentation instantiation: over one million signed encounters across a production window exceeding six months and thirteen medical specialties, Knowtex's proprietary fine-tuned clinical foundation models operating inside a closed feedback architecture achieve an aggregate ER of 97.99%, with per-specialty aggregates spanning 96.8-98.9%. This release reports the protocol's checklist partially, and states which companion statistics are withheld; the benchmark is offered so that this figure, and every figure reported after it, can be held to the same standard.

Jocelyn Kang, Caroline Zhang

Knowtex Inc.

Clinician Trust Clinical Notes Human-Annotated Benchmark

Sep 14, 2026cs.AI

When Rubrics Fail: Hallucinations Reveal Blind Spots in Medical AI Evaluation

Hallucinations can undermine clinician trust in LLMs, making it important that evaluation methods capture clinically relevant errors. Rubric-based evaluation has become the leading approach for assessing LLMs in medicine, but it is unclear whether rubric scores reflect such errors. We first study this in a controlled setting using MedHallu, finding that more specific rubrics better distinguish correct from hallucinated responses. To test this systematically, we develop a taxonomy of medical hallucination types and a clinician-validated error-injection pipeline that creates matched correct and error-injected responses. Across HealthBench, HealthBench Professional, and LiveMedBench, our clinically relevant hallucinations are missed by rubrics, often leaving scores unchanged. We find that rubrics are most effective when explicitly checking facts, and are less effective for additional or unexpected errors they do not anticipate. A preliminary retrieval-based factuality check recovers some of the rubric-blind errors, suggesting a complementary approach. These findings reveal systematic blind spots in current medical evaluation of LLMs and suggest that rubric scores alone are insufficient to establish clinical reliability, potentially undermining clinician trust and confidence in clinical deployment.

Griffin Farrow, Lily Sijia Li, Jack Johnson +4

University of Oxford

Clinician Trust Visual Hallucinations Blind Spots

Sep 12, 2026cs.AI

LLMs as Post-hoc Auditors of Physiological Plausibility in Symbolic Regression: A Clinician-Evaluated Case Study

Genetic Programming and its variants, such as grammatical evolution, are widely used in Symbolic Regression to derive mathematical expressions from multivariate data. In addition to predictive accuracy, models are appreciated for their potential to provide interpretability, offering explicit equations that relate input variables to outcomes. However, achieving interpretability and plausibility remains challenging, as evolved models may be complex or scientifically inconsistent. In this study, we explore whether Large Language Models, can assist in improving the explainability of Symbolic Regression models generated by evolutionary computation methods. Building upon our previous work on estimating body fat percentage using grammar-based Genetic Programming , we investigate the use of LLMs as post-processing tools to analyze and rank evolved expressions according to their interpretability and medical plausibility. Four symbolic expressions are analysed by three LLMs over three repeated runs, and the resulting interpretations and rankings are assessed by a panel of three clinicians. Across the three LLMs, comparative model-ranking outputs received more favorable clinician assessments than isolated term-level interpretations. However, the LLMs also produced physiologically and mathematically questionable explanations, indicating that they are better suited to comparative auditing under expert oversight than to autonomous validation.\blfootnote{The present work is an extended version of a paper submitted into a journal.

Jorge López-Varela, J. Ignacio Hidalgo, José-Manuel Muñoz +6

Computer Architecture Department, Universidad Complutense de Madrid, Spain. · Bioinspired Intelligence Ltd., Pozuelo de Alarc´on, Spain · Universidad Aut´onoma de Baja California, M´exico +7

Symbolic Regression Explainability Clinician Trust Genetic Algorithms Model Auditing Grammaticality

Sep 11, 2026cs.AI

Scaling Clinical Judgment to Evaluate Medical AI

Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). This is difficult to scale; thus, prior studies typically rely on small physician panels, often from a single institution or specialty, which both limits the scientific questions investigated and makes it unclear whether findings would be reproduced with a different set of evaluators. To more rigorously and scalably study clinical reasoning in AI models, here we introduce PrecepTron, an LLM fine-tuned for physician-level evaluation of open-ended responses. PrecepTron was trained using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) of a 32-billion-parameter model on a small number of physician examples. We also release GRAND-ROUNDS, a new large-scale physician-annotated benchmark of 9,217 scored responses from 160 clinicians across seven studies. We show that frontier LLMs in typical "LLM-as-a-judge" approaches often disagree with physicians and with each other, but fine-tuning PrecepTron on a small number of cases enables physician-level consistent scoring across tasks. We use PrecepTron to reproduce headline findings from five influential studies assessing LLMs for clinical care in JAMA, Science, and Nature Medicine without new human grading. Using PrecepTron, we then pose new questions about how LLMs reason in medicine that would have been infeasible with human grading alone, including measuring the diagnostic accuracy of frontier LLMs when clinical cases are provided piecemeal, even token by token. Together, PrecepTron and GRAND-ROUNDS provide a foundation for reproducible, large-scale study of how LLMs reason in medicine. All code, data, and labels are made freely available for researchers.

Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee, Peter G. Brodeur +15

Department of Biomedical Informatics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA · Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA · Stanford Division of Hospital Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA +11

Clinician Trust Open-Ended Responses Multilayer Perceptrons

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

Clinician Trust Emergency Departments Screening Improvement

Aug 31, 2026cs.CL

One note in three: a verified census of three deployed AI scribes, and the instrument that counted it

Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 142 consultations: 565 notes from recorded UK primary-care and US ambulatory encounters plus authored scenarios. Twelve discovery passes proposed 13,678 candidate errors; the 5,898 clearing an importance filter went to an adversarial panel of two models from different families, each told to refute what it could, and 618 survived. One note in three (31.3% [27.0, 35.6]) carries a verified failure, concentrated in allergy and medication information, invented patient identity, and history written up as examination on telephone consultations that can contain none. No product was given a patient record; setting aside the two classes a record would have prefilled, invented identity and dates, the rate is 24.8% [20.8, 29.0]. One failure mode did not fit our scheme, drawn from published scribe-error taxonomies: a treatment the clinician retracts, recorded as delivered care. Two clinicians adjudicated blind, disjoint samples: a physician author upheld 20 of 21 findings (95.2% [77.3, 99.2]) and an independent clinician, not an author, 12 of 12 ([75.8, 100]); both judged every sampled refusal genuine. A failure rate depends on the instrument as much as the scribes. With model, evidence and settings fixed, the review instruction alone moves the share of candidates verified from 9.3% to 79.0%, and the reviewing family moves it too: alone at that instruction the gentler flags 54.8% of notes against 27.8%. Between 28% and 97% of sampled notes carry a failure depending on the standard. Published audits disagree among themselves by a margin instrument differences alone can produce: omission is 54-86% of their errors against our 23.1%. We release all 618 findings with transcript-side evidence, every prompt and model version, and the re-runnable pipeline.

Sebastian Fox, Luke Markham, Ryan Lail +1

Composo

Clinician Trust Clinical Notes Model Auditing Peer Review Notes Ai-Assisted Writing+2

Aug 31, 2026cs.HC

Augmenting Interviewer Judgments of Patient Experience with Automatic Language Analysis

Understanding how psychiatric patients subjectively experienced a clinical conversation is important for feedback and alliance-related process monitoring. While interviewers form post-session judgments about patient experience, these judgments do not always match patients' self-reports. Automatic approaches for predicting perceived interaction quality from conversation have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether such approaches can complement human judgment rather than simply replicate it. To address this gap, we evaluate a clinician-support framework in which post-session interviewer ratings are combined with automatic language-based predictions to estimate patient-reported interaction quality in free clinical interviews. We assess this integration across multiple standard model types, including Ridge, SVR, MLP, GRU, and BiLSTM, all trained on sentence embeddings extracted from dyadic transcripts of 107 free conversations between psychiatric patients and interviewers. Our results show that combining interviewer judgments with model predictions through simple averaging yields the strongest overall performance. The interviewer-only baseline reached a Pearson correlation of 0.365. Among fully automatic models, Ridge achieved the strongest Pearson correlation (r = 0.286), while BiLSTM achieved r = 0.270. The strongest result was obtained by BiLSTM interviewer integration (r = 0.403). Our findings suggest that automatic language analysis and interviewer judgment capture complementary aspects of patient experience and that their combination provides a more accurate approximation of the patient's own report than either source alone.

Aowen Shi, Michal Balazia, Danilo Postin +4

INRIA Universit´e Cˆote d’Azur, Valbonne, France · Carl von Ossietzky University of Oldenburg, Germany · German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Saarbrücken, Germany +1

Interviews Clinician Trust Inter-Annotator Agreement Patients Bidirectional Long Short-Term Memory

Aug 10, 2026cs.AI

Towards Expert-level Medical AI for Real-time Video Consultations

Audio-visual interaction is the standard for patient-physician consultations, enabling natural communication and effective assessment of illness through non-verbal cues. While text-based AI has shown promise, it discards essential perceptual dimensions and limits patients who cannot articulate symptoms in writing. Early efforts to extend medical AI to audio-visual interaction have demonstrated feasibility but not reached clinician-level performance. Here, we provide the first demonstration of expert-level AI in real-time clinical video consultations using AMIE (Articulate Medical Intelligence Explorer) in a video configuration. AMIE (Video) is a Gemini-based multi-agent system integrating low-latency dialogue, clinical reasoning, and real-time audio-visual perception. To guide development, we established a taxonomy and automated evaluations for clinical audio-visual cues in telehealth settings. In a randomized Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) study with 30 primary care physicians (PCPs), 15 patient actors and 100 clinical scenarios, we compared AMIE (Video), its text-only counterpart AMIE (Text), and PCPs consulting via video. Clinical evaluators rated AMIE (Video) on par or better than PCPs in history-taking, diagnosis, management, and physical observation and examination. Patient actors preferred AMIE's approach to assessing and explaining conditions, while PCPs were preferred for rapport and partnership building. In modality ablation, patient actors preferred AMIE (Video)'s interface over text chat for communicative effectiveness, convenience, and feeling understood. Limitations remain in fine anatomical precision, subtle affective nuances, and high-frequency movements. While further research is needed before real-world translation, these results mark an important milestone toward AI systems capable of augmenting care across the sensory complexity of clinical practice.

Mahvish Nagda, Jihyeon Lee, Matthew Thompson +37

Google Research · Google DeepMind

Multimodal Clinical Data Clinician Trust

Jul 21, 2026cs.AI

Quality Action Assurance: Multimodal Verification of Examiner Claims in VR OSCEs

Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCEs) are the gold standard for assessing clinical competence, yet scoring remains vulnerable to examiner subjectivity, fatigue, and cognitive bias. Standard examiner validation via inter-rater statistics lacks explanatory power regarding the source of errors, as it neither analyzes examiner reasoning nor verifies examiner claims against actual events. Thus, we introduce Quality Action Assurance (QAA), a multimodal framework that verifies examiner claims in Virtual Reality (VR) pediatric OSCEs by comparing actions claimed by examiners against a reference record of events constructed from video, VR logs, and actor annotations. QAA combines a constrained temporal action alignment model, which performs action localization and actor source attribution, with a large language model that extracts examiner claims and checks them against the record. Across a 5-fold cross-validation, QAA achieves 99.2%

\pm

0.7% Actor F1 and 93.4%

\pm

1.9% W@16 for temporal alignment. Overall, QAA detects examiner errors with 69.9% precision and 76.7% recall; in retrospective evaluation, correcting the detected errors raises the share of factually correct transcripts from 39.2% to 79.2%, supporting fairer OSCE quality assessment.

Harry Rogers, Sally Shiels, Ashley Tomlinson +5

Department of Engineering Science, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK · Department for Continuing Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

Reference-Guided Multimodal In-Context Verification Clinician Trust Assessment Inter-Annotator Agreement Virtual Reality

Jul 16, 2026cs.AI

MedFailBench: A Clinician-Built Open-Source Benchmark for Medical AI Safety Boundary Inspection

Most medical AI benchmarks measure whether a model knows the correct answer. MedFailBench asks a different question: which safety boundary failed? We present a clinician-built synthetic benchmark and failure atlas that labels medical AI errors by severity (1--5) and safety gate type (missed urgent escalation, unsafe remote dosing, unsafe discharge reassurance, evidence fabrication, unsafe protocol execution, source support gap). The current public release (v0.2.1) contains 44 clinician-reviewed synthetic cases with severity annotations, a live HuggingFace leaderboard preview, a safety gate taxonomy, a clinical severity rubric, and an automated pipeline for archiving model-response screening runs. No patient data, clinical validation claims, or model rankings are included. MedFailBench is released under Apache-2.0 and CC-BY-4.0 and carries the Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.21205535.

Goktug Ozkan

Department of Internal Medicine, Kutahya Emet Dr. Fazil Dogan State Hospital, Kutahya, Turkiye

Artificial Intelligence Safety Clinician Trust Diagnostic Benchmark Artificial Intelligence Benchmarks Annotations

Jul 1, 2026cs.CL

Clinician-Level Agreement Without Clinical Caution: LLM Evaluator Limits in Medical AI Benchmarking

Open-response evaluation provides stronger clinical validity than multiple-choice benchmarks but creates a scoring bottleneck that motivates automated LLM-asa-Judge approaches. Whether such evaluators replicate clinical calibration and caution, however, remains untested. We introduce MedQADE, the first standardised open-response clinical benchmark for German, a major clinical language lacking native evaluation infrastructure, comprising 3,800 items annotated by ten practising physicians and nine Large Language Model (LLM) evaluators. The top-performing evaluator model, Gemini 3 Flash, reached alignment consistent with the physician ceiling (\k{appa} = 0.694 vs. \k{appa} = 0.709), though wide confidence intervals limit interpretation. Despite this statistical alignment, automated evaluators exhibited near-absent clinical metacognition: physicians scaled abstention with item difficulty, while frontier models assigned definitive scores in every case. We additionally quantified systematic lineage-dependent biases, where models preferentially scored architectural siblings, an effect independent of language. These results show that statistical alignment does not ensure clinical caution, and that evaluator independence requires explicit verification.

William Philipp, Finn Fassbender, Thorsten Langer +11

Section for Clinical Research-IT, Institute of Medical Biometry and Statistics, University of Luebeck, Luebeck, Germany. · Medical Faculty, University of Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany. · Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, University of Luebeck / University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Luebeck, Germany. +5

Clinician Trust Large Language Model Evaluation Metacognition

Jun 23, 2026cs.AI

The Clinician's Veto: Navigating Trust, Liability, and Uncertainty in Autonomous AI Prescribing

Autonomous AI systems are transitioning from advisory to autonomous roles for medication prescriptions. Recent United States bill H.R. 238 and Utah's prescription-renewal pilot both authorize AI to prescribe medications in an agentic capacity. While some regulatory guidelines suggest aggregate model performance metrics for clearance, they do not require i) calibrated per-prediction confidence for action-gated thresholds, ii) differentiated communication of uncertainty arising from model ignorance (epistemic) versus genuine clinical ambiguity (aleatoric), and iii) inferential transparency at the moment of decision that allows for liability allocation. Here, we present a regulatory and technical argument (tested with a survey of 136 U.S. prescribing clinicians) positioning these as minimum architectural requirements for safe autonomous prescribing. Our results suggest prescribing clinicians i) would not permit autonomous prescribing without a calibrated confidence-based escalation mechanism, ii) preferred a competing-options summary when uncertainty was aleatoric but shifted to abstention when uncertainty was epistemic, and iii) were only willing to accept additional liability when inferential transparency enabled a substantive judgment under acknowledged uncertainty. These findings indicate our recommended architectural features would encourage higher rates of clinician adoption, largely through collapsing much of what "autonomy" conventionally means. A system meeting these requirements would function less as an autonomous agent and more as a heavily supervised decision-support tool. As legislation and state pilots proceed, our technical argument backed by clinician perspectives provides opportunities for regulation to constrain the degree of autonomy ethically granted to AI in prescribing while aligning liability with the institutional actors who control system design and deployment.

Eileanor LaRocco, Sarah Tan, Adarsh Subbaswamy +4

University of Virginia · Cornell University · University of Maryland, Baltimore +1

Medication Leaflet Clinician Trust AI Trustworthiness Abstention Uncertainty Agentic

Jun 23, 2026cs.LG

Enhancing Clinician Decision-Making via Uncertainty-Aware Multi-Expert Fusion for Stroke Rehabilitation

Tailoring stroke rehabilitation requires assessing how movements are organized, not merely if they succeed. Currently, this assessment is a rate-limiting bottleneck. Instruments like the Action Research Arm Test (ARAT) compress rich behavioral observations into single ordinal endpoints, discarding the movement-quality details that distinguish recovery from compensation. Automated alternatives typically chase accuracy on noisy, single-observer labels to output opaque scores - a technology-centric approach that rarely reaches clinical practice. To address this, we present xAARA: an engine designed to augment rather than replace clinical judgment. From multi-view video, xAARA returns ARAT assessments with calibrated uncertainty and explanations across task, movement-phase, and movement-quality levels. Treating clinical scoring as an ill-posed inference problem, xAARA composes 692 calibrated multimodal models via a Dynamic Bayesian Network with entropy-based gating. It qualifies results against clinical validity rules and defers low-confidence cases. In 105 stroke survivors (788 exercises), xAARA achieved 94.2% task accuracy (Cohen's kappa=0.934) and 81.3% movement-phase accuracy (kappa=0.727), reducing predictive uncertainty by 96.1% compared to single-clinician scoring. For subjective cases, it matched at least one rater 100% of the time and never returned out-of-range scores. Four independent clinicians validated the assessments and indicated willingness to adopt the system. We argue that principled uncertainty quantification and clinician-aligned explainability are the critical bridges moving automated assessment from technical demonstration to a deployable clinical tool.

Tamim Ahmed, Thanassis Rikakis

Bioemdical Engineering, University of Soutehrn California,, Los Angeles, 90007, CA, USA.

Rehabilitation Clinician Trust Uncertainty-Aware Fusion

Jun 17, 2026cs.CL

Before the Labels: How Dataset Construction Shapes Suicidality Detection in Clinical Text

Clinical NLP increasingly relies on electronic health record (EHR) data to detect suicidal behaviors, treating clinical documentation as more reliable ground truth than social media. We argue that this framing obscures how EHR-based suicidality datasets encode a particular operationalization of suicidality, shaped by who authors the data, how episodes are bounded, and how ambiguity is resolved. We ground this argument in a case study of the ScAN dataset, built over MIMIC-III clinical notes. We show how governance constraints, ICD-based cohort selection, single-annotator labeling, and hospital-stay-level aggregation produce labels that reflect clinician-documented judgments, treat suicidality as a bounded episode, and assume that intent can be reliably inferred from documentation. A linguistic analysis demonstrates that identical labels subsume heterogeneous clinical framings differing in temporality, negation, and uncertainty. We argue that clinical NLP should examine the assumptions embedded in suicidality datasets before interpreting their labels as ground truth.

Priyanshi Garg, Ishita Rao, Jieqiong Ding +1

Department of Linguistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA · Human Centered Design & Engineering, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA

Suicide Risk Electronic Health Records Clinician Trust Natural Language Processing

Jun 16, 2026cs.CY

Agentic AI Enhances Physician Trust in Clinical Decision Making

Medical AI has shifted from reasoning to agentic AI, a new paradigm that autonomously invokes external tools during reasoning, rendering intermediate reasoning steps and tool outputs transparent to users. Although proven to outperform previous models, physician trust in agentic AI remains largely unexplored. To address this, three physicians evaluated 315 multimodal clinical cases quantifying both process-oriented cognitive trust and outcome-oriented behavioral reliance. Comparing agentic AI against non-agentic baselines, physicians exhibited significantly higher cognitive and behavioral trust for the agentic model (P < 0.001). Specifically, on treatment planning tasks, physicians trusted the agentic reasoning most, preferring it in 89.57% of cases. Furthermore, process-oriented cognitive trust is significantly associated with outcome-oriented behavioral reliance (P < 0.001). However, measurable over-reliance on incorrect agentic outputs still exists, highlighting the inherent limitations of decision-logic transparency alone and underscoring the continuous need for rigorous clinician oversight.

Zhiling Yan, Zhe Fang, David J King +10

Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA · Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA · Department of Medicine, Division of Cardiology, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA +4

Clinician Trust Clinical Decision Support Agentic Framework

Jun 8, 2026cs.CL

CARE: A Conformal Safety Layer for Medical Summarization

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical summarization, but their outputs can omit medically important information and introduce unsupported claims. Existing error-detection methods produce heuristic or uncalibrated scores, providing no formal control over missed errors and no principled way to trade off safety against clinician review burden. We introduce Conformal Assessment for Risk Evaluation (CARE), a post-hoc, model-agnostic safety layer that uses conformal risk control to overlay calibrated omission and hallucination flags onto summaries from any LLM without retraining. CARE provides finite-sample, distribution-free guarantees through two controllers: a hallucination controller that bounds the probability of a document containing any unflagged hallucinated sentence, and an omission controller that bounds the expected fraction of important omissions not surfaced for review. Unlike hallucination detection, omissions depend jointly on whether a source sentence is important and whether it is covered by the summary. We show that calibrating only one dimension can violate the target risk bound, while marginal decompositions remain valid but overly conservative. By jointly calibrating over the full

(τ,γ)

threshold space, CARE preserves formal guarantees while surfacing up to 5

\times

fewer sentences than alternative calibrated baselines. Across five medical summarization tasks, CARE satisfies the target risk bound at

α= 0.15

with 95% confidence across 100 calibration/test resplits, using only ~100 labeled documents per domain. In a preliminary clinician study (75 document reviews), calibrated flags improved omission detection by 28.6 percentage points on average. These results show that sentence-level safety guarantees are feasible for LLM-assisted medical summarization and offer a tunable mechanism for balancing residual risk and review effort.

Suhana Bedi, Bridget Lin, Anson Y. Zhou +5

Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University · Department of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University · Department of Computer Science, Stanford University +2

Summarization Large Language Model Safety Clinician Trust Conformal Risk Control Omissions

Jun 3, 2026cs.AI

Ten Headache Specialists versus Artificial Intelligence for Clinical Literature Summarization: A Critical Evaluation and Comparison

Summarizing the latest medical literature to guide clinical decision-making is essential for evidence-based medicine and high-quality patient care. Yet clinicians face increasing challenges due to limited time with patients and a rapidly growing volume of published articles. Although retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in clinical summarization, human evaluations of their effectiveness in synthesizing broader scientific literature and direct comparisons to expert-written syntheses remain scarce. We constructed a RAG-based agentic AI framework using three state-of-the-art LLMs: Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama 3.1. A headache specialist created 13 questions, three for prompt optimization and ten for evaluation. Ten headache specialists across the United States and Canada each wrote a summary for one question, yielding four summaries per question (expert, Sonnet, GPT-4o, and Llama). The experts, blinded to authorship, critically evaluated the summaries, excluding the topic for which they wrote a summary, based on correctness, completeness, conciseness, and clinical utility, scoring each from 1 to 10 using standardized rubrics. They also ranked the summaries by preference and indicated whether they believed each summary was written by an expert or an LLM. Our study, comparing LLM- and expert-written literature summaries evaluated by headache specialists, showed that expert-written summaries were preferred, although experts sometimes found it challenging to distinguish between human- and AI-generated summaries. We also identified key expert-valued features beyond standard evaluation metrics that can guide future refinement of both human and AI literature summarization pipelines.

Alejandro Lozano, Keiko Ihara, Ping-Hao Yang +13

Stanford University, Palo Alto, CA, USA · Department of Neurology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA · Department of Neurology, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada +8

Summarization Clinician Trust Comparison Agentic Framework

May 30, 2026cs.CV

An explainable hierarchical self attention-based approach for tremor detection in the time domain

Tremor is a common movement disorder associated with conditions like Parkinson's disease and Essential tremor, traditionally diagnosed through expert clinician assessment. Current automated detection methods rely on frequency-domain features informed by clinical expertise. In this work, we present an explainable, two-stage hierarchical framework for tremor detection in the time domain that learns tremor patterns directly from 3D kinematic marker time-series data across entire tremor-provoking trials. Our framework combined a deep convolutional and long short-term memory network to learn tremor representations from short, discrete, non-overlapping time segments of kinematic time series data from trials, which are then processed by a vision transformer that models their long-term temporal dynamics of time segment features for trial (session) level classification. Evaluated across nine body parts, the framework achieved F1-scores of 0.594 - 0.947 depending on body parts (average: 0.765), falling short of the frequency-domain state-of-the-art performance (0.909) while requiring minimal preprocessing. Attention weights and gradient-based class activation maps (Grad-CAM) identified time-domain features of tremor across body parts. This proof of concept demonstrated the feasibility of data-driven time-domain modeling for tremor detection across anatomically diverse body parts, while reducing reliance on expert-engineered spectral features and providing posthoc interpretability of temporal and anatomical patterns of tremor.

Timothy Odonga, Jeanne M. Powell, Mark Saad +5

Department of Biomedical Informatics, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA · Jean and Paul Amos Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Program, Department of Neurology, School of Medicine, Emory University, Atlanta, GA, USA · Wallace H. Coulter Department of Biomedical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA, USA

Time-Frequency Seizure Detection Gradient-Weighted Class Activation Mapping Clinician Trust

May 20, 2026cs.HC

CandorMD: An AI-Assisted Audio Simulation and Feedback System for Training Clinicians for Medical Error Disclosure

Clinicians are expected to disclose harmful medical errors to patients and families in line with ethical, regulatory, and patient care standards, yet these conversations remain challenging because of their emotional complexity and limited training opportunities. Most physicians still learn primarily through lectures and observation, while static video tools-though available-are underused, lack adaptability across specialties, and deliver delayed, generic feedback. These gaps restrict skill development, reduce self-efficacy, and contribute to avoidance of disclosure conversations, ultimately compromising patient care and eroding trust. To address these needs, we designed CandorMD -- an AI-assisted simulation system that provides real-time practice, actionable feedback, and diverse practice environments tailored to individual learning needs. We conducted semi-structured interviews with physicians, risk managers, patient advocates, and communication experts to understand current practices, identify gaps, and collect feedback on CandorMD. Based on these insights, we present findings and design recommendations for the future of AI-supported medical communication training.

Inna Wanyin Lin, Sahand Sabour, Hong Sng +4

University of Washington Seattle, WA, USA · Tsinghua University Beijing, China

Simulated Patients Clinician Trust Disclosures Feedback Loop Dynamic Environments

May 18, 2026cs.AI

What Does the AI Doctor Value? Auditing Pluralism in the Clinical Ethics of Language Models

Medicine is inherently pluralistic. Principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice routinely conflict, and such ethical dilemmas often sharply divide reasonable physicians. Good clinical practice navigates these tensions in concert with each patient's values rather than imposing a single ethical stance. The ethical values that large language models bring to medical advice, however, have not been systematically examined. We present a framework for auditing value pluralism in medical AI, comprising a benchmark of clinician-verified dilemmas and an attribution method that recovers value priorities directly from decisions. The ecosystem of frontier models spans physician-level value heterogeneity, and models discuss competing values in their reasoning (Overton pluralism) before committing to a decision. However, individual model decisions are near-deterministic across repeated sampling and semantic variations, failing to reproduce the distributional pluralism of the physician panel. Across benchmark cases, these consistent decisions reflect committed, systematic value preferences. While most model priorities fall within the natural range of inter-physician variation, some significantly underweight patient autonomy. A single LLM deployed without regard for its value priorities could amplify those priorities at scale to every patient it serves. Without explicit efforts to balance ethical perspectives with one or multiple models, these tools risk replacing clinical pluralism with a deployment monoculture.

Payal Chandak, Victoria Alkin, David Wu +11

Internal Pluralism Clinician Trust Heterogeneity

May 18, 2026cs.AI

Evaluating the Utility of Personal Health Records in Personalized Health AI

Patient-managed Personal Health Records (PHRs) promises to empower patients to better understand their health; but information in the record is complex, potentially hindering insights. In this study, we assess the potential of large language models (LLMs, Gemini 3.0 Flash) to provide helpful answers to user health queries, when provided clinical data from PHRs as context. A total of 2,257 user queries were drawn from 3 different distributions to represent patient questions: shorter web search queries, longer questions derived from templates of chatbot conversations, and questions patients asked to their healthcare team (patient calls). Queries were matched with de-identified PHRs (from a pool of 1,945). Gemini responses were generated (1) without PHR context; (2) with a basic summary of demographics, conditions, and medications; (3) with full, extensive clinical notes. For evaluation, we leveraged an existing rating framework (SHARP), and developed a new framework for specific error modes when interpreting PHRs. Evaluation was performed using autoraters for the full set, and with clinician ratings for a subset (n=95), with both sets of raters knowing the full PHR context. We see significant improvements in the helpfulness of answers to all question types with PHR data (p < 0.001, paired t-test). We also observe potential gains in safety, accuracy, relevance and personalization of answers. Our PHR evaluation framework further identifies gaps in LLM understanding of particular aspects of complex PHRs, such as temporal disorientation, and rare but meaningful confabulations. These results suggest potential for PHR data to help people with a wide range of user needs; and provide a framework for monitoring for gaps in LLM answers based on PHR context. This study motivates further work to assess and realize potential benefits to users from understanding their health records.

Rory Sayres, Kejia Chen, Ayush Jain +19

1Google Research · †Work done while at Google Research

Electronic Health Records Clinician Trust

May 7, 2026cs.AI

Resolving the bias-precision paradox with stochastic causal representation learning for personalized medicine

Estimating individualized treatment effects from longitudinal observational data is central to data-driven medicine, yet existing methods face a fundamental limitation: reducing confounding bias often suppresses clinically informative heterogeneity, degrading patient-specific predictions. Here, we identify this tension as a bias-precision paradox in causal representation learning and introduce sampling-based maximum mean discrepancy (sMMD), a stochastic alignment strategy that replaces global adversarial balancing with subset-level matching. We instantiate this approach in a framework for counterfactual outcome prediction with attribution-grounded interpretability. Across two large-scale ICU cohorts (n = 27,783), our framework improves accuracy under distribution shift, reducing error by up to 11.5% and substantially increasing recall in high-risk tasks. Mechanistic analyses show that sMMD selectively preserves clinically decisive variables. In human-AI evaluation, our method outperforms clinicians-in-training and large language models, and improves clinician accuracy by 14.7% while reducing decision time, enabling interpretable, real-time clinical decision support.

Peisong Zhang, Manqiang Peng, Yuxuan Wu +21

School of Medicine, NUS, . · College of Design and Engineering, NUS, . · Aier Academy of Ophthalmology, Central South University. +14

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects Causal Representation Learning Clinician Trust Maximum Mean Discrepancy

May 5, 2026cs.CL

Atomic Fact-Checking Increases Clinician Trust in Large Language Model Recommendations for Oncology Decision Support: A Randomized Controlled Trial

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.

Lisa C. Adams, Linus Marx, Erik Thiele Orberg +8

Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, TUM University Hospital Rechts der Isar, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany · Department of Radiation Oncology, TUM University Hospital Rechts der Isar, TUM School of Medicine and Health, Technical University of Munich, Munich, Germany · Department of Internal Medicine III: Hematology and Clinical Oncology, University Hospital Regensburg, University of Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany +4

Clinician Trust Fact-Checking Dose

May 4, 2026cs.AI

ADAPTS: Agentic Decomposition for Automated Protocol-agnostic Tracking of Symptoms

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.

Alexandria K. Vail, Marcelo Cicconet, Katie Aafjes-van Doorn +2

Deliberate Solutions, Inc. New York, New York, USA

Depression Mental Health Affective Computing Clinician Trust Reasoning Skills

Apr 30, 2026cs.LG

Learning from Disagreement: Clinician Overrides as Implicit Preference Signals for Clinical AI in Value-Based Care

We reframe clinician overrides of clinical AI recommendations as implicit preference data - the same signal structure exploited by reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), but richer: the annotator is a domain expert, the alternatives carry real consequences, and downstream outcomes are observable. We present a formal framework extending standard preference learning with three contributions: a five-category override taxonomy mapping override types to distinct model update targets; a preference formulation conditioned on patient state s, organizational context c, and clinician capability kappa, where kappa decomposes into execution capability kappa-exec and alignment capability kappa-align; and a dual learning architecture that jointly trains a reward model and a capability model via alternating optimization, preventing a failure mode we term suppression bias-the systematic suppression of correct-but-difficult recommendations when clinician capability falls below the execution threshold. We argue that chronic disease management under outcome-based payment contracts produces override data with uniquely favorable properties-longitudinal density, concentrated decision space, outcome labels, and natural capability variation-and that training environments combining longitudinal outcome measurement with aligned financial incentives are a necessary condition for learning a reward model aligned with patient trajectory rather than with encounter economics. This framework emerged from operational work to improve clinician capability in a live value-based care deployment.

Prabhjot Singh, Abhishek Gupta, Chris Betz +4

Altitude

Clinician Trust Disagreement

Apr 30, 2026cs.CL

HealthBench Professional: Evaluating Large Language Models on Real Clinician Chats

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.

Rebecca Soskin Hicks, Mikhail Trofimov, Dominick Lim +13

OpenAI

Clinician Trust Large Language Model Benchmarks Physical Activities

Apr 27, 2026cs.AI

Case-Specific Rubrics for Clinical AI Evaluation: Methodology, Validation, and LLM-Clinician Agreement Across 823 Encounters

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.

Aaryan Shah, Andrew Hines, Alexia Downs +6

1Canvas Medical, San Francisco, CA, USA · Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA · 3XPC (X Primary Care) +2

Clinician Trust Artificial Intelligence Evaluation Inter-Annotator Agreement Methodology Authorship

Apr 23, 2026cs.LG

Reliability Auditing for Downstream LLM tasks in Psychiatry: LLM-Generated Hospitalization Risk Scores

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in clinical reasoning and risk assessment. However, their interpretive reliability in critical and indeterminate domains such as psychiatry remains unclear. Prior work has identified algorithmic biases and prompt sensitivity in these systems, raising concerns about how contextual information may influence model outputs, but there remains no systematic way to assess these, especially in the psychiatric domain. We propose an approach for reliability auditing downstream LLM tasks by structuring evaluation around the impact of prompt design and the inclusion of medically insignificant inputs on predicted hospitalization risk scores, which is often the first downstream AI clinical-decision-making task. In our audit, a cohort of synthetic patient profiles (n = 50) is generated, each consisting of 15 clinically relevant features and up to 50 clinically insignificant features, across four prompt reframings (neutral, logical, human impact, clinical judgment). We audit four LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Flash, LLaMa 3.3 70b, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o mini), and our results show that including medically insignificant variables resulted in a statistically significant increase in the absolute mean predicted hospitalization risk and output variability across all models and prompts, indicating reduced predictive stability as contextual noise increased. Clinically insignificant features had an effect on instability across many model-prompt conditions, and prompt variations independently affected the trajectory of instability in a model-dependent manner. These findings quantify how LLM-based psychiatric risk assessments are sensitive to non-clinical information, highlighting the need for systematic evaluations of attributional stability and uncertainty behavior like this before clinical deployments.

Shevya Panda, Shinjini Bose, Ananya Joshi

Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, USA

Mental Health Clinician Trust Psychometric Properties High-Stakes Domains Model Auditing

Apr 22, 2026cs.AI

MedSkillAudit: A Domain-Specific Audit Framework for Medical Research Agent Skills

Background: Agent skills are increasingly deployed as modular, reusable capability units in AI agent systems. Medical research agent skills require safeguards beyond general-purpose evaluation, including scientific integrity, methodological validity, reproducibility, and boundary safety. This study developed and preliminarily evaluated a domain-specific audit framework for medical research agent skills, with a focus on reliability against expert review. Methods: We developed MedSkillAudit (skill-auditor@1.0), a layered framework assessing skill release readiness before deployment. We evaluated 75 skills across five medical research categories (15 per category). Two experts independently assigned a quality score (0-100), an ordinal release disposition (Production Ready / Limited Release / Beta Only / Reject), and a high-risk failure flag. System-expert agreement was quantified using ICC(2,1) and linearly weighted Cohen's kappa, benchmarked against the human inter-rater baseline. Results: The mean consensus quality score was 72.4 (SD = 13.0); 57.3% of skills fell below the Limited Release threshold. MedSkillAudit achieved ICC(2,1) = 0.449 (95% CI: 0.250-0.610), exceeding the human inter-rater ICC of 0.300. System-consensus score divergence (SD = 9.5) was smaller than inter-expert divergence (SD = 12.4), with no directional bias (Wilcoxon p = 0.613). Protocol Design showed the strongest category-level agreement (ICC = 0.551); Academic Writing showed a negative ICC (-0.567), reflecting a structural rubric-expert mismatch. Conclusions: Domain-specific pre-deployment audit may provide a practical foundation for governing medical research agent skills, complementing general-purpose quality checks with structured audit workflows tailored to scientific use cases.

Yingyong Hou, Xinyuan Lao, Huimei Wang +10

Department of Pathology, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University, Shanghai, China · 1AIPOCH PTE. LTD., Singapore

Inter-Annotator Agreement Clinician Trust Skills Model Auditing Scientific Discovery

Apr 19, 2026cs.CL

Calibrated? Not for Everyone: How Sexual Orientation and Religious Markers Distort LLM Accuracy and Confidence in Medical QA

Safe clinical deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) requires not only high accuracy but also robust uncertainty calibration to ensure models defer to clinicians when appropriate. Our paper investigates how social descriptors of a patient (specifically sexual orientation and religious affiliation) distort these uncertainty signals and model accuracy. Evaluating nine general-purpose and biomedical LLMs on 2,364 medical questions and their counterfactual variants, we demonstrate that identity markers cause a "calibration crisis". "Homosexual" markers consistently trigger performance drops, and intersectional identities produce idiosyncratic, non-additive harms to calibration. Moreover, a clinician-validated case study in an open-ended generation setting confirms that these failures are not an artifact of the multiple-choice format. Our results demonstrate that the presence of social identity cues does not merely shift predictions; it affects the reliability of confidence signals, posing a significant risk to equitable care and safe deployment in confidence-based clinical workflows.

Alberto Testoni, Iacer Calixto

Department of Medical Informatics, Amsterdam University Medical Center, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. · Amsterdam Public Health, Methodology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Large Language Model Reliability Clinician Trust Gender Real-World Clinical Workflows Counterfactuals

Apr 16, 2026cs.AI

DeepER-Med: Advancing Deep Evidence-Based Research in Medicine Through Agentic AI

Trustworthiness and transparency are essential for the clinical adoption of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare and biomedical research. Recent deep research systems aim to accelerate evidence-grounded scientific discovery by integrating AI agents with multi-hop information retrieval, reasoning, and synthesis. However, most existing systems lack explicit and inspectable criteria for evidence appraisal, creating a risk of compounding errors and making it difficult for researchers and clinicians to assess the reliability of their outputs. In parallel, current benchmarking approaches rarely evaluate performance on complex, real-world medical questions. Here, we introduce DeepER-Med, a Deep Evidence-based Research framework for Medicine with an agentic AI system. DeepER-Med frames deep medical research as an explicit and inspectable workflow of evidence-based generation, consisting of three modules: research planning, agentic collaboration, and evidence synthesis. To support realistic evaluation, we also present DeepER-MedQA, an evidence-grounded dataset comprising 100 expert-level research questions derived from authentic medical research scenarios and curated by a multidisciplinary panel of 11 biomedical experts. Expert manual evaluation demonstrates that DeepER-Med consistently outperforms widely used production-grade platforms across multiple criteria, including the generation of novel scientific insights. We further demonstrate the practical utility of DeepER-Med through eight real-world clinical cases. Human clinician assessment indicates that DeepER-Med's conclusions align with clinical recommendations in seven cases, highlighting its potential for medical research and decision support.

Zhizheng Wang, Chih-Hsuan Wei, Joey Chan +19

Division of Intramural Research (DIR), National Library of Medicine (NLM), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD 20892, USA · Hunterian Neurosurgical Laboratory, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21231, USA · Cancer Data Science Laboratory, Center for Cancer Research, National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), Bethesda, MD 20892, USA +7

Deep Research Clinician Trust Evidence-Grounded Questions

Apr 16, 2026cs.LG

Can LLMs Accurately Score Medical Diagnoses and Clinical Reasoning?

Evaluating medical AI systems using expert clinician panels is costly and slow, motivating the use of large language models (LLMs) as alternative adjudicators. Here, we evaluate an LLM Jury, composed of three frontier AI models, for scoring 3334 diagnoses on 300 real-world low- and middle-income country (LMIC) hospital cases. Both LLM- and clinician-generated diagnoses are scored against expert panel diagnoses across four dimensions: diagnosis, differential diagnosis, clinical reasoning, and negative treatment risk. The LLM Jury scores are compared with expert and independent re-scoring panel scores to assess error metrics, inter-rater agreement, severe-risk errors, and the effect of post hoc calibration using isotonic regression. In our data, we find that: (i) the uncalibrated LLM Jury scores preserve ordinal agreement with the expert clinician panel scores, but are systematically lower; (ii) the probability of severe-risk errors is lower for the LLM Jury than the human expert re-score panels; (iii) the LLM Jury combined with LLM diagnoses can be used to identify diagnoses at high risk of error, enabling targeted expert review and improved panel efficiency; (iv) the calibrated LLM Jury scores and rankings of diagnosing agents show excellent agreement with those of the primary expert panels; (v) LLM Jury models show no self-preference bias, they did not score diagnoses generated by their own underlying model or models from the same vendor more (or less) favourably than those generated by other models. Together, these results provide evidence that a calibrated LLM Jury is a trustworthy and reliable proxy for expert clinician evaluation in medical AI benchmarking. Confirming these findings in other clinical settings is an important direction for future work.

Amy Rouillard, Sitwala Mundia, Linda Camara +8

aWits MIND Institute, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · fSchool of Computer Science and Applied Mathematics, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa · bGrai Labs, Cape Town, South Africa +3

Clinician Trust Large Language Model Judges Diagnosis

Feb 4, 2026cs.AI

AI Chatbot Suicide Risk Detection and Response: Human Validation Study of the Open-Source VERA-MH Safety Evaluation

Millions of people now use generative AI chatbots for psychological support. Despite their promise, the most pressing question in AI for mental health is whether these tools are safe. The field currently lacks a validated, automated benchmark for evaluating AI chatbot safety, particularly for users at risk of suicide. The Validation of Ethical and Responsible AI in Mental Health (VERA-MH) evaluation was recently proposed to address this need. This human validation study examined the alignment of VERA-MH safety ratings with expert clinician judgments. We simulated conversations between large language model (LLM)-based users spanning a range of suicide risk levels and disclosure styles and general-purpose AI chatbots. Licensed mental health clinicians from Spring Health independently rated chatbot safety using the VERA-MH scoring rubric. An LLM-based evaluator ("judge") applied the same rubric to the same conversations. We examined agreement among clinicians, between clinician consensus and the LLM judge, and across different judge LLMs. Clinicians also rated user-agent realism, suicide risk, and disclosure. Clinicians showed strong agreement in safety ratings (chance-corrected inter-rater reliability [IRR] = 0.77), establishing a reliable clinical consensus reference. The LLM judge was strongly aligned with this consensus (IRR = 0.81), and ratings were stable across judge models and repeated evaluations. Ratings of user-agent realism and fidelity to intended suicide risk and disclosure styles were mixed. These findings support the reliability of VERA-MH as an open-source, fully automated benchmark for evaluating AI chatbot suicide risk detection and response. Because these results reflect an earlier version of the benchmark, future work should validate updated versions, assess generalizability and robustness, and expand VERA-MH to additional domains of AI safety in mental health.

Kate H. Bentley, Luca Belli, Adam M. Chekroud +7

Spring Health · UC Berkeley · Yale University

Suicide Risk Artificial Intelligence Safety Clinician Trust

Aug 10, 2025cs.AI

EndoCogniAgent: Closed-Loop Agentic Reasoning with Self-Consistency Validation for Endoscopic Diagnosis

Endoscopic diagnosis is an iterative process in which clinicians acquire, compare, and verify local visual evidence before reaching a conclusion. Current AI systems do not adequately support this process because fine-grained evidence acquisition and multi-step reasoning remain weakly coupled, complicating reconciliation of image-derived findings with their textual interpretations. This gives rise to two failure modes, hallucinated evidence and uncorrected error accumulation, that undermine diagnostic reliability. We propose EndoCogniAgent, a closed-loop agentic framework that formulates endoscopic diagnosis as a controlled state update process for integrating complementary visual and textual evidence. At each reasoning round, a central planner selects an evidence acquisition action, specialized expert tools extract spatial and semantic observations as structured textual evidence, and a self-consistency validation mechanism examines this evidence along two dimensions, knowledge consistency against the input image and temporal consistency with prior validated findings, before updating the diagnostic state. Validated observations are admitted into the evolving state to condition subsequent planning, while insufficiently supported or conflicting findings are retained with corrective feedback that redirects the planner toward additional verification. We further introduce EndoAgentBench, a workflow-oriented benchmark comprising 6,132 question-answer pairs from 11 endoscopic datasets, to evaluate diagnostic agents across a comprehensive diagnostic chain, from fine-grained visual perception to high-level diagnostic reasoning. EndoCogniAgent achieves 85.23% overall accuracy on perception tasks and 71.13% clinical acceptance rate on reasoning tasks. Blinded clinician evaluation further shows consistent improvements in diagnostic response quality over the evaluated baselines.

Yi Tang, Kai-Ni Wang, Liang-Peng Pu +3

School of Biological Science and Medical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China · Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Biomaterials and Devices, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China · State Key Laboratory of Digital Medical Engineering, Southeast University, Nanjing 211189, China +2

Colonoscopy Diagnosis Clinician Trust Agent Loop