Medical Question Answering

Complex medical information is often difficult for patients to understand, making effective medical knowledge simplification essential for improving patient comprehension, informed decision-making, and health outcomes. Recent advances in large language models (LLMs) provide a promising approach for simplifying complex medical information into patient-friendly language; however, their effectiveness in real-world patient education remains insufficiently explored through human evaluation. To investigate their practical effectiveness, this paper presents a case study on diabetes knowledge simplification through the implementation and evaluation of MediClear, an LLM-based medical knowledge simplification system enhanced with Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Public diabetes-related articles from Diabetes Australia, WHO, American Diabetes Association (ADA), NIDDK, and AIHW are indexed in the RAG knowledge base to retrieve clinically grounded information, which is then simplified by the LLM into accessible patient explanations. We evaluate the generated responses using standard readability metrics, including the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), and conduct a human study involving 10 participants. Results show that MediClear consistently reduces the reading level of generated responses to the recommended patient literacy range while achieving high user satisfaction and willingness for future use. This case study demonstrates the potential of LLMs to improve the accessibility of medical knowledge for patient education.

Medical benchmarks are dominated by single-turn, multiple-choice clinical cases that poorly reflect real consultations. Practically, clinicians elicit evidence interactively and patient communication varies widely. We introduce MedRoundsQA, a multi-turn diagnostic benchmark derived from 1,387 board-exam cases across 17 specialties. Each case is converted into a structured 24-slot clinical record, and then instantiated as controlled doctor-patient dual-agent dialogues under varying patient personas, with the underlying clinical content held fixed. We further classify cases by difficulty using model-based uncertainty to enable easy-to-hard analysis. Evaluations of fifteen LLM doctor agents show that (i) moving from a single-turn diagnosis on the standardized records to multi-turn consultations causes large degradations of roughly 13-39 points; (ii) more turns reliably improves question relevance, but diagnostic accuracy exhibits diminishing returns and typically plateaus after 6-12 turns; and (iii) patient persona differences can shift diagnosis accuracy by about 7-8 points (lowest to highest education), highlighting equity risks that single-turn benchmarks miss.

Clinical education must prepare medical students to conduct safe and coherent patient interviews under conditions of uncertainty. Traditional standardized patient (SP) training is resource-intensive and difficult to scale. We developed a scaffolding-oriented multi-agent Large Language Model (LLM) AI Standardized Patient (AI-SP) training platform1. The system includes a patient agent for simulated dialog, a tutor agent providing Socratic prompts without disclosing diagnostic information, and a turn-level evaluator agent that monitors clinical progress without revealing summative scores. In a randomized controlled study (N = 100 medical students), participants were assigned to either a multi-agent (MA) scaffolding condition or a control condition. All students completed two learning sessions under their assigned condition followed by an examination conducted in a patient only environment. Performance was assessed using a standardized Objective Structured Clinical Examination (OSCE) based rubric. While no significant difference was observed in final diagnostic accuracy between groups, the multi-agent AI standardized patient system improved final examination scores compared to the control group utilizing structured progressive information disclosure; the most substantial and consistent improvements were observed in communication, the expression of empathy, and specific history-taking behaviors. These findings suggest that specialized LLM agents enhance the process quality of simulated clinical interviews without artificially inflating examination outcomes. To support future research, we release a multi-expert annotated dataset comprising transcripts, checklist annotations, turn-level evaluations, and OSCE-aligned scoring outcomes. This resource aims to facilitate the development of pedagogically grounded AI-SP systems and advance research on AI-supported clinical reasoning training.

Should multilingual LLMs answer medical questions consistently across input languages, or adapt responses to cultural cues? Existing multilingual medical benchmarks usually assume that medically correct answers should remain consistent across languages and treat cross-lingual variation as model error. In contrast, cultural adaptation research argues that appropriate medical answers may legitimately differ across contexts. We review the multilingual medical NLP literature through these two perspectives, we identify three gaps: limited stakeholder perspectives (e.g., of medical professionals), a lack of empirical evidence on which approach better serves users, and no benchmarks capable of distinguishing universally correct from culture-specific cases. To address the first gap, we survey 356 participants across three stakeholder groups (medical, NLP, and anthropology professionals) in three countries (Germany, Spain, and the United States). Anthropologists consistently favor adaptation, while medical and NLP respondents remain divided, with notable divergence between U.S. and European medical professionals. LLMs prompted with profession and country personas fail to reproduce this variation, overestimating cross-lingual consistency preference among NLP and medical personas. We conclude that neither consistency nor adaptation can currently be considered clearly preferable, highlighting the need for empirical evidence on which approach better serves users across cultural contexts.

We introduce FramingQA, a benchmark that measures the model sensitivity to question framing across law, medicine, finance, and robotic simulations. Large language models (LLMs) often change their responses to subtle rephrasings that align with an implied stance by users. This can leave users with advice tainted by how they happened to phrase a question rather than by the underlying facts, and the consequences are highly costly in high-stakes domains. Because in the realistic scenarios, both expert practitioners and non-expert users frequently ask LLMs questions containing incomplete or misleading assumptions, models are highly susceptible to those framings. To test this, we inject the framing bias across three nested levels: a framing-biased question phrasing (root), an injected framing-biased premise prepended to a neutral question (propositional), and a premise paired with a framing-biased question (global). Evaluating nine open models (3.8B-70B) across four families, we find that strong per-variant accuracy does not guarantee the robustness across differently phrased questions under the fixed factual information.

We present EmoMed - a multimodal medical consultation agent that adapts its responses based on users' emotional states while maintaining clinical accuracy. The system processes text and medical images, detects affect indicators (anxiety, confusion, urgency) from user input, and adjusts response tone, structure, and detail level accordingly. To ensure factual reliability, the agent grounds clinical information through a dual retrieval mechanism: web-based fact-checking and an API-connected, continuously updated medical knowledge base. We evaluate our approach across seven state-of-the-art language models (GPT-4/5, Qwen3, Llama 4, Gemini 2.5, Grok4, Claude3) using comprehensive metrics including LLM-as-judge assessments, MedQA style accuracy tests, BERT Score, safety/helpfulness ratings, and multimodal medical benchmarks. The results demonstrate that emotionally adaptive responses consistently outperform neutral baseline across evaluation dimensions, without compromising clinical accuracy. A controlled user study validated these findings, with participants reporting improved perceived empathy and communication clarity, while maintaining trust in factual accuracy. Source code: https://github.com/NasonovIvan/EmoMed-Agent

Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can improve the specificity and grounding of large language model responses, but its effect is not uniformly beneficial in single-turn mental-health question answering, where user queries often combine emotional distress, treatment concerns, and safety-sensitive needs. We study when retrieval helps or hurts mental-health QA, and whether a lightweight selective retrieval policy can better control this trade-off. We operationalize retrieval need using three draft-conditioned utility dimensions: psychoeducational need, coping need, and response specificity, together with a rule-based safety trigger. Following psychotherapy-grounded RAG systems such as coTherapist, we construct a compact and controllable guideline corpus comprising coping-strategy, psychoeducational, and safety resources. We fine-tune an instruction-tuned generator on MentalChat16K using QLoRA and compare Closed-book, Always Retrieval, and Selective Retrieval settings on CounselBench-Eval and CounselBench-Adv. Experiments show that retrieval is not uniformly beneficial in this domain. Always Retrieval improves specificity but lowers overall quality and introduces additional safety-sensitive failures. Selective Retrieval preserves closed-book behavior for low-need cases while avoiding the additional degradation caused by unconditional retrieval, supporting the view that retrieval activation is a safety-sensitive control decision.

Linear classifiers trained on hidden states of a large language model (LLM), linear probes, can flag factual errors from a single forward pass. Geometrically, that implies that true and false statements separate along a stable direction in hidden state space, i.e., the truth direction. Prior work disagrees on whether this generalises across input shifts, but the disagreement is hard to interpret because cross-dataset probe transfer experiments confound several kinds of input change at once. We isolate three such variables in medical question-answering (QA): writing style (register), domain (medical specialty), and corpus (dataset). We build a benchmark using 500 MedQA entries, each rewritten into four styles (textbook, patient, clinical note, colloquial), annotated with clinical specialty, and grouped with two other exam corpora, MedMCQA and MMLU-medical, for cross-dataset evaluation. Probing four open-weight LLMs (2--8B), we find that the truth direction is largely robust to writing style (mean $Δ_\text{register} \approx 0.10$ AUROC on held-out facts) and to medical specialty ($Δ_\text{specialty} \approx 0.03$), but degrades unevenly across corpora: by $0.12$ AUROC on MMLU-medical and by $0.21$ on MedMCQA, roughly twice the register gap. The register result replicates with a second generator and carries over to human-written patient questions. The truth direction is therefore largely stable within the medical domain but breaks under some corpus shifts, and question format does not explain the break, which suggests that the signal a linear probe recovers is partly bound to dataset structure rather than to medical knowledge alone.

When information extraction fails, a natural instinct is to improve the model doing it: for example, by scaling it up or refining its reasoning. In this paper, we show that another part of the pipeline matters at least as much: the queries used to elicit this information. Across four clinical benchmarks and five LLMs, improving the question design alone raises performance by 18.6 F1-score points, i.e. more than using larger extraction models. To make such question design learnable, we introduce List of Questions (LoQ), which generates document-specific question sets, and FeedQ, a feedback-driven optimization method that iteratively refines questions against extraction outcomes. The resulting optimized questions can be used to train lightweight generators: with fine-tuning, 4B-parameter models match or outperform expert-derived baselines and substantially exceed the performance of much larger untuned models. We release a dataset of 12,820 optimized questions to support a broader shift in information extraction research toward treating question design as a first-class problem.

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

Reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards has been especially effective in mathematics and coding, where answers can be checked automatically. Many open-ended medical questions lack comparably cheap outcome verifiers: responses may be partly correct, incomplete, or contain clinically consequential errors. Rubrics written or validated by physicians offer strong clinical grounding, but involving experts in every instance is costly. Model-generated rubrics make this supervision scalable. We introduce ConRub-Med to preserve useful distinctions as rubric feedback moves from construction to policy optimization. For each prompt, three heterogeneous language models propose atomic criteria independently; a separate model reviews them, retaining only criteria with semantic support from all three generators. Three-State scoring distinguishes correct coverage, missing information, and incorrect claims. Errors receive negative rather than zero credit. When every response in a complete Group Relative Policy Optimization (GRPO) group receives the same final reward, a pairwise judge provides sequence advantages only if both candidate orders agree, without changing the scalar rewards. Groups without ties use vanilla GRPO. In a blinded study matched by question, two medical experts rate panels from the full pipeline as more clinically relevant than panels produced by one generator. Across the evaluated open models, ConRub-Med ranks first on six of nine benchmarks and achieves the highest medical and generalization averages. Using the resulting rubric dataset of 5,166 prompts, it scores $38.98 \pm 1.04$ (mean $\pm$ SD) on HealthBench-Hard, compared with InfiMed-ORBIT's 33.60 with 8,000 samples and 37.30 with 28,000.

Many modern AI systems analyze conversational traces to infer aspects of human interaction and state, implicitly assuming that such information is recoverable from conversation. We study observability: whether a target is recoverable from conversational transcripts alone. Observability is difficult to assess because transcripts may provide only a partial view of many targets, and large-scale analysis requires model-based annotation, making true limits of the conversational signal hard to distinguish from annotator error. We therefore study clinical encounters, where patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an external anchor for patient state, and visits follow broadly structured patterns. We study observability of patient state and conversational phase structure using 439 real-world clinical encounter transcripts spanning 134 hours, including 245 ENT transcripts paired with 273 PROM surveys. We operationalize patient state using PROM scores for voice, cough, and swallowing; phase structure using conversational phase segmentation. To make these analyses credible at scale, we use a PHI-compliant GPT-5 deployment for transcript annotation and conduct 40 hours of manual validation, reducing the risk that apparent limits of observability simply reflect annotator error. Our core finding is an observability asymmetry: phase structure is observable and useful for characterizing clinical encounter organization, while patient state is only partially observable, even in a setting designed to elicit patient symptoms and experiences, cautioning against transcript-only inference of human state.

Prospective daily symptom tracking is central to premenstrual health assessment, but repeated ordinal forms impose substantial response burden. We formulate conversational administration as an ordinal label-recovery problem: the system actively elicits a small set of symptom clusters and maps each response to the original severity labels. We used 3,320 complete participant-days from the mcPHASES dataset, covering cramps, mood swing, fatigue, sleep issues, stress, and bloating on a six-level scale. Six participants were reserved for development and 36 for a frozen evaluation comprising 360 participant-days and 2,160 item labels. A ModernBERT evidence gate detected whether a symptom was expressed, and Qwen2.5-1.5B-Instruct produced deterministic structured severity scores. Fixed six-item questioning achieved a quadratic weighted kappa of 0.976, whereas three joint symptom-cluster questions achieved 0.913, 97.45% agreement within one severity level, and 80.94% recall for moderate-or-higher symptoms while reducing questions by 50%. Open-first adaptive policies required 3.92-5.98 questions and produced lower agreement than the corresponding fixed policies. Participant-cluster bootstrap analysis estimated a kappa difference of -0.062 (95% CI -0.076 to -0.048) between the three-cluster and six-item strategies. Active cluster-level elicitation provides a direct, local-model route from natural conversation to reusable daily symptom labels.

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

Much clinical value is conveyed not through structured records but through communication: exchanges in which patients describe symptoms, clinicians reason and give instructions, ambulances hand over to emergency departments, and nurses pass on a shift. Such language differs from tabular data because meaning depends on speaker role, intent, causality, uncertainty, omission, and channel noise. Healthcare natural language processing must therefore interpret information as conveyed rather than coded. This requires well-annotated corpora, which are scarce because authentic exchanges are private, fragmented, and costly to annotate. Large language models offer a way forward by transforming clinical sources, such as records, diagnostic labels, symptom lists, or care plans, into written and transcribed communication for downstream models. We present a structured narrative survey organized by source representation, communication form and participants, generation method, and downstream task, complemented by thirteen novel case studies. These build clinical NLP systems for communication channels and languages without labeled real-world data, including EMS pre-arrival reports, field-radio casualty documentation, nurse handoffs, patient-portal triage, and low-resource discharge communication. They show that synthetic communication can bootstrap such systems. Findings include the competitiveness of fine-tuned encoder models over evaluated zero-shot baselines and the value of deliberately degraded communication for robustness. The main limitation is that most studies evaluate on held-out synthetic communication, while train-on-synthetic, test-on-authentic evidence remains limited. We conclude that syn-thetic clinical communication is becoming a practical research resource; establishing it as reusable clinical infrastructure will require authentic-data transfer, safety and external validation.

Patient-facing medical LLMs and agents increasingly answer symptom questions before clinician contact, where the key safety question is what action the user should take next. We introduce CARE-Bench, a source-grounded benchmark that evaluates sequential patient-facing triage as a four-label per-turn current-action task. CARE-Bench contains 500 cases and 1,059 evaluated patient-disclosure prefixes reconstructed from medical dialogue, consultation, and follow-up-question sources. We evaluate 11 models on 269 held-out rounds under unprompted and minimally prompted open-ended protocols, using a fixed GPT-5.5 mapper to code each response into the four-label action space. Unprompted macro-F1 remains low, ranging from 31.2 to 50.4. Prompting improves 10 of 11 models, with prompted macro-F1 ranging from 46.9 to 63.4, but substantial threshold errors remain. Prompted models often recommend care before needed clarification is obtained; when the correct action was to ask for more information, only 33.5% of prompted outputs preserved the step. The persistence of these errors after prompting suggests that patient-facing triage is not a simple prompting problem and supports explicit evaluation of action timing before deployment.

Citation excerpts can be used to increase the reliability of generated outputs and their faithfulness to cited sources, which is especially important in high-stakes domains such as human and veterinary medicine. However, this does not guarantee that generated claims are faithful to the provided excerpts. We present VetScore, a multi-step evaluation method for veterinary long-form question answering, designed to assess how well are generated claims supported by the provided excerpts, weighing this information by each claim's harm potential. VetScore first segments the output and decomposes it into individual claims, then scores each claim with respect to its harm potential and evaluates its faithfulness to source excerpts, and finally calculates the overall risk-adjusted score. We collect an expert-annotated meta-evaluation dataset, evaluate our approach with a range of judge models, and show that it achieves high correlations with veterinary experts even with small judge models, while offering explainability across multiple dimensions.

This work presents DS@GT ARC BioASQ team's work for a biomedical question answering pipeline, integrating multi-source query expansion, neural reranking, retrieval refinement, and OpenBioLLM-assisted answer generation. The system combines PubMed retrieval with fine-tuned MiniLM-based semantic reranking, Reciprocal Rank Fusion (RRF), and feature-based relevance scoring to improve document ranking quality. To address challenging queries with weak retrieval performance, we introduce a conditional weak-question recovery strategy that applies semantic expansion, relationship-aware augmentation, and selective result merging. A post-retrieval pruning stage further removes redundant or low-relevance snippets while preserving evidence coverage for downstream answer generation. Experimental results on BioASQ evaluation batches demonstrate that the proposed recovery and cleanup strategies substantially improve retrieval robustness and MAP@10 performance on difficult question sets. The final system also incorporates output validation and post-processing steps to ensure formatting consistency and submission reliability across BioASQ phases.

The integration of artificial intelligence into medical question-answering systems has advanced rapidly; however, research remains predominantly focused on English, leaving low resource languages like Persian significantly underserved. To address this gap, this paper introduces Gaokerena, a novel family of compact Persian medical language models optimized for deployment on consumer grade hardware. As a foundational step toward localized digital healthcare, we first present Gaokerena-V, developed by training a baseline model on a newly curated 90-million-token Persian medical corpus and 20,000 expert-vetted physician Q&A pairs, which improved performance on a translated medical MMLU benchmark from 46.28% to 49.31%. Second, recognizing the critical demands of clinical reasoning, we developed Gaokerena-R by integrating a Chain-of-Thought approach with two novel Reinforcement Learning with AI Feedback (RLAIF) frameworks to optimize preference-based reasoning. Despite utilizing the same baseline architecture and a smaller dataset than Gaokerena-V, Gaokerena-R achieved a superior benchmark score of 52.98%. Furthermore, both models are equipped with custom-developed uncertainty heads that predict the model's confidence in its responses based solely on internal hidden states. While these results demonstrate significant progress in Persian medical language modeling and proactive safety estimation, current performance levels remain insufficient for direct clinical application, highlighting the necessity for further research into robust knowledge acquisition and rigorous safety verification prior to real world deployment.

This paper introduces a new benchmark test, Medical-Checklist, for assessing medical multimodal models. The recent advancements in multimodal models have demonstrated significant potential in the field of medical vision-language tasks. However, it is becoming increasingly clear that evaluating these models' performance, whether they are applied to natural or medical images, is challenging. The critical question is whether the models can accurately understand an input image while associating it with relevant input text. To address this, Medical-Checklist imposes a binary test on the models: they are given an image and two captions, where one is correct and the other incorrect, and the model must select the correct one. The incorrect caption contains a single medical concept (word or phrase) that is inaccurately substituted from the correct caption. Although the task is simple, this simplicity enables the unified assessment of diverse multimodal models designed and learned on different principles. It also enables us to verify whether models correctly understand a wide range of medical concepts across various medical sub-domains. Medical-Checklist is designed to reduce potential biases in data and to enable evaluation of the models' ability to handle out-of-distribution inputs, which were difficult in existing datasets. When evaluating four state-of-the-art medical multimodal models with Medical-Checklist, it was revealed that despite their excellent performance in specific tasks such as Med-VQA, they may not correctly understand images, suggesting a long journey ahead for clinical application. The dataset and code will be made public upon acceptance.

Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks. We extend it to open-ended clinical conversation under missing information, where safe behavior means recognizing absent information and qualifying, clarifying, or not over-committing - and where the evaluator becomes part of the measurement. We stress-test four models - three flagships (Claude Opus 4.8, GPT-5.5, Grok 4.3) and one mid-tier model (Gemini 3.5 Flash) - by deleting the latter half of the final user turn in HealthBench conversations, grading responses with a four-provider LLM-judge panel and a blinded clinician-anchored reference. Two evaluator-facing results are robust. First, judge choice materially changes apparent safety: inter-judge agreement is only moderate (Fleiss' kappa = 0.65), and after adjusting for each judge's general leniency (vote-level logistic regression), a positive same-provider association remains (exact permutation p = 0.04; GPT-5.5 ~ +0.10 on the probability scale) - large enough to change which model appears to over-commit least once its own-provider judge is excluded. Second, LLM judges are more permissive than clinicians on a blinded 50-item subsample: all four are significantly more lenient than the stricter independent clinician (crediting appropriate uncertainty on 66-84% of items vs 52%), and three of four than the author-influenced consensus (Grok directional only; judge-vs-consensus kappa = 0.20-0.43). On the author-audited clinical-underdetermined subset the permissiveness gap widened and the point-estimate model ordering held. A closed-ended MedQA anchor confirms accuracy is high and option-order effects are within a +/-5-point equivalence region for three of four models, so the safety gap is about calibration, not knowledge. We release the harness, prompts, per-item outputs, judge panel, perturbation audit, and human-annotation protocol.

This paper describes TalTech's submissions to the Beyond Transcription Challenge (BeTraC), which requires generating SOAP notes directly from long doctor-patient conversation recordings, without intermediate transcription. After screening open-weight speech LLMs for long-audio robustness, we adapted Voxtral Mini (lightweight track) and Voxtral Small (heavyweight track) with LoRA supervised fine-tuning followed by DAPO reinforcement learning that uses the challenge metric, Open Medical Concept F1, as its reward. Our systems ranked first in both tracks, and an independent LLM-as-a-judge evaluation showed the lowest hallucination rate among all submissions, indicating that reinforcement learning against a concept-matching metric need not compromise factual reliability. We also find that fine-tuning on text transcripts transfers well to speech input and appears to improve robustness on out-of-domain real recordings.

Frontier language models are increasingly evaluated on biomedical benchmarks, but two problems undermine most published evaluations: legacy benchmarks are near-saturated, and open-ended responses are graded by other language models. We evaluate Claude Fable 5, Anthropic's most capable publicly available model, across eight biomedical benchmarks, four text and four multimodal, using deterministic scoring against fixed answer keys throughout. We include two Claude predecessors and GPT-5 as baselines. Refusal is tracked as a distinct outcome in every result table. That decision produces the paper's central finding. Fable 5 refuses between 8.0% and 99.4% of questions depending on the benchmark, a pattern absent in both predecessors and in GPT-5. Once refused items are excluded from the denominator, Fable 5's accuracy exceeds or meets every other model on every benchmark in this study. We identify two distinguishable refusal patterns: one concentrating in basic-science and mechanism content across MedQA and MedXpertQA MM, confirmed independently on two benchmarks using each benchmark's own category labels; and a separate disease-domain pattern on RareBench, where inborn metabolic disease presentations are refused near-universally while adult-onset autoimmune presentations are not. The primary constraint on Fable 5's biomedical usefulness is willingness to engage, not capability once it does.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in online medical consultation, yet existing benchmarks remain poorly aligned with real clinical practice. Many rely on synthetic conversations or patient simulators, omit patient-uploaded medical images, or evaluate open-ended clinical responses using multiple-choice or lexical-overlap metrics that poorly reflect clinical quality. We introduce \textbf{MedRealMM}, a large-scale benchmark for multimodal online medical consultation built from de-identified patient-doctor interactions collected from a nationwide Chinese internet hospital. MedRealMM uses a Multimodal Clinical Challenge Point (MCCP) extraction framework to identify clinically demanding moments in authentic consultation trajectories and converts each into a standardized next-response generation task while preserving the preceding text-image context. Each instance is paired with a case-specific rubric refined by physicians that rewards clinically desirable behaviors and penalizes unsafe, unsupported, or contradictory responses. The current release contains 5,620 real-world multimodal cases spanning 64 clinical departments. We evaluate 19 general-purpose and medical-specialized LLMs, including text-only and multimodal systems. Our results show that image information is critical for reliable clinical performance and that current frontier models remain below the online physician response. Although some frontier models satisfy as many or more positive clinical criteria than physicians, they trigger more negative criteria, indicating that safety-sensitive error avoidance remains a central bottleneck. MedRealMM offers a realistic and reproducible benchmark for evaluating multimodal medical reasoning in real-world online consultation. The dataset will be publicly available on Hugging Face at https://huggingface.co/datasets/jdh-algo/MedRealMM.

Biomedical question answering requires not only accurate extraction of information from scientific literature but also reliable integration of evidence across multiple documents. This study presents a question-type-specific large language model (LLM) framework for BioASQ 14b Task B, designed to improve answer robustness and evidence grounding in biomedical question answering. Rather than applying a single prompting strategy to all questions, the framework selects different inference procedures for yes/no, factoid, and list questions according to their distinct reasoning and evaluation requirements. For yes/no questions, snippet shuffling and self-reflection are used to reduce sensitivity to evidence ordering and improve decision stability. For factoid questions, full-snippet input is combined with chain-of-thought-based in-context learning to support accurate biomedical entity identification. For list questions, a multi-agent architecture is employed, in which evidence extraction, candidate generation, answer verification, and final aggregation are handled collaboratively. Preliminary experiments on BioASQ 13b were used to identify effective inference strategies for each question type, and the resulting framework was subsequently evaluated in the official BioASQ 14b Task B challenge. In the official evaluation, our framework showed competitive performance across multiple batches and achieved first place in the factoid subtask of Batch 4. These results demonstrate the effectiveness of combining question-type-specific inference, ensemble prediction, and agent-based verification for reliable biomedical question answering.

Large language models (LLMs) achieve promising results on medical question answering benchmarks, yet their use in public health is constrained by hallucinations and the rapid evolution of official guidance. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) mitigates these risks by grounding responses in an explicitly maintained corpus, but end-to-end performance depends critically on retrieval configuration and on evaluation beyond multiple-choice formats. We extend PubHealthBench, a question answering (QA) benchmark of 7,929 questions derived from UK Government public health guidance, into a retrieval-augmented setting and systematically evaluate retrieval and generation choices. We compare dense, sparse, and hybrid retrieval across multiple embedding models and corpus variants, and show that hybrid retrieval consistently improves recall and ranking quality, with chunk length and topic interacting with ranking performance. Providing retrieved context substantially increases multiple-choice accuracy across a diverse set of LLMs, enabling smaller open-weight models to match or outperform larger models used without retrieval, with gains primarily driven by retrieval quality and careful context selection. To assess realistic free-form answering, we introduce a rubric-based LLM-as-a-judge covering faithfulness, completeness, clarity, and factual consistency, and validate it against dual human annotations. Judge-human agreement is strongest for faithfulness and completeness, while factual consistency and clarity are less reliably reproduced, motivating caution when interpreting those dimensions at scale. Overall, our results highlight retrieval as a primary lever for reliable public health QA and provide practical guidance for building and evaluating RAG systems grounded in official guidance.

Medical multiple-choice question answering requires parameter-efficient adaptation across heterogeneous knowledge domains and reasoning operations. A medication question, a diagnostic decision, a public-health item, and a nursing-action item may require different low-rank updates, while some recall items should preserve the base model's representation with only mild adapter intervention. We propose BiRG-LoRA, a single-adapter rank-gated LoRA method for medical question answering. BiRG-LoRA keeps one LoRA module per target layer but makes its rank dimension input-conditioned: for each question, a biaxial gate combines hidden semantic evidence with specialty/profession priors, clinical-operation priors, and their interaction to select a sparse top-$k$ subset of rank atoms. A scalar injection coefficient further controls the strength of the selected adapter update. Under a matched Qwen3-8B CMB-source protocol, BiRG-LoRA achieves the highest four-benchmark macro-average accuracy among trainable PEFT baselines and matched routing controls: 69.31% averaged over CMB, CMExam, MedQA, and MedMCQA. It improves over MoELoRA by 0.89 percentage points while using 28.1% fewer trainable parameters; a paired, benchmark-stratified bootstrap over final predictions gives a 95% confidence interval of [0.42, 1.37] for this macro-average gain. Basic controls show that BiRG-LoRA also improves over vanilla LoRA r16 and active-rank-matched LoRA r4 by 0.83 macro points, and an evaluation-time weak-axis perturbation check suggests that performance is not brittle to moderate tag noise. The results support a bounded claim: clinically structured rank allocation improves cross-benchmark medical QA under a matched single-seed protocol, while training-seed variance remains future work.

Medical question-answering benchmarks rarely cover the maternal, neonatal, child, and reproductive-health questions a nurse-midwife asks, and, to our knowledge, no public chunk-level relevance benchmark exists for maternal-health guideline retrieval. We release two benchmarks that fill these gaps. mamabench is a scope-filtered QA set of 25,949 items assembled from seven existing expert-authored sources across multiple-choice, short-answer, and rubric-graded tracks; to help users calibrate the LLM judge that scores the rubric track, we re-scope HealthBench's physician-labelled meta-evaluation to the domain. mamaretrieval pairs 3,185 clinical queries with graded (0-6) relevance labels over a 63,650-chunk maternal-health guideline corpus, using a decomposed rubric that distinguishes a chunk that answers a query from one merely on its topic. Three decisions shape both: assemble and filter expert sources rather than author questions, grade relevance rather than binarise it, and measure and disclose the limits of the labels -- scope-classifier agreement, a frontier-judge check, and a pooling-completeness audit -- rather than treat them as an oracle. A companion paper uses the benchmarks to evaluate a deployed on-device assistant; both are released openly for research.

Medical large language models are commonly adapted with a fixed low-rank budget, even though medical questions differ substantially in confidence, clinical coverage, and cross-domain difficulty. We study adaptive rank budgeting for parameter-efficient medical question answering: for each question, the adapter decides whether to activate a small, medium, or large subset of LoRA rank channels. The central challenge is that a naive adaptive budget router can collapse to unstable choices or spend capacity without improving shifted benchmarks. We propose TriageRA-CCF, a source-side teacher for adaptive rank-budgeted LoRA. It combines three signals computed only from source training data: base-model answer confidence, metadata-cell clinical coverage, and a counterfactual close-miss proxy. These signals supervise a straight-through budget router over active ranks {2,4,8}, together with budget-cost, entropy, and rank-balance regularization. Under a matched CMB-source training protocol, TriageRA-CCF achieves the best average accuracy among LoRA, DoRA, and MoELoRA baselines on both Qwen3-8B and Llama3.1-8B. The gains are modest and non-uniform across benchmarks: +0.21 average points over the strongest external baseline on Qwen3-8B and +0.16 on Llama3.1-8B. Component ablations show that confidence, coverage, and counterfactual signals all provide useful budget supervision, but their combination is not monotonically best on every backbone.

Physicians now pose millions of clinical questions to AI tools each week, yet these tools are evaluated largely on hypothetical or exam-style questions, not those actually asked in practice. We report a blinded evaluation built on 620 Real-world Point-Of-Care Queries (Real-POCQi) submitted to the OpenEvidence (OE) platform by physicians spanning 30 specialties, as well as 187 questions from HealthBench. 149 practicing physicians across 36 states made head-to-head comparisons between answers from three frontier general-purpose models (Claude Opus 4.8, Gemini 3.1 Pro, and GPT-5.5) and a specialized clinical tool (OE), with graders matched to each question's specialty. When comparing answers along five dimensions relevant to clinical decision support -- accuracy, clinical utility, source quality, verifiability, & completeness -- physicians scored the specialized tool highest on all axes; in the primary analysis on Real-POCQi, win differences (margins between win and loss rates) ranged from 25 to 39 percentage points (p<0.001). Results remained consistent in sensitivity analyses stratifying by citation display, answer length, OE-user status, and Real-POCQi versus HealthBench. In parallel, LLM judges were found to systematically differ from expert judges, though both generally agreed on the best model. These findings underscore two conclusions: (i) AI tool evaluations should reflect real-world query distributions and use expert judges that mirror the specialization defining modern medicine and (ii) the consistent advantage of the specialized tool over general-purpose models does not necessarily mean that the latter cannot serve similar purposes, but that targeted engineering and customization can yield meaningful gains in performance for its users. We release Real-POCQi as a public benchmark, as well as the prespecified statistical analysis for reproducing results of this study.

Doctor agents are moving beyond single-turn answer generation toward evolving clinical decision systems. Within an outpatient episode, they acquire evidence, use examination and consultation resources, and decide when to finalize a diagnosis and management plan. Across episodes, their behavior may change through memory, retrieval, reflection, or other update mechanisms. Current evaluations only partially cover this setting. Fixed-input medical QA benchmarks score final answers from complete inputs, whereas many interactive benchmarks still focus on individual encounters or fixed runs, providing limited support for evaluating how episode-level decisions interact with cross-episode experience. We introduce MedEvoEval, an executable longitudinal evaluation framework based on action-gated simulated outpatient episodes. Each source case is converted into role-specific patient, examination, and manager views; evidence is revealed only through valid actions; and each episode records a structured trace that links observations, actions, final outputs, manager scores, and optional experience write-back. We release a runnable E&D artifact with 700 processed episodes, provenance notes, schemas, an episode runner, scoring scripts, configurations, example logs, analysis code, and trajectory- and step-level derivatives. Experiments show that episode traces expose process costs hidden by final-answer scoring, show how MDT-style consultation reallocates resources, and support longitudinal analyses of memory maturation, held-out transfer, update-stage response, and backward retention. Together, these results show that MedEvoEval provides a concrete basis for evaluating whether doctor agents improve through experience, transfer useful behavior, and retain earlier capabilities over time.

Recent advances in large language models and vision-language models have enabled reasoning over multimodal data, offering opportunities for clinical applications such as decision support and triaging. However, existing medical AI benchmarks are fragmented: some support multi-turn dialogues but lack images, while others provide multimodal inputs but focus on single-turn QA tasks. To address this gap, we introduce IMCBench, an image-grounded, multi-turn medical conversation benchmark that pairs real, publicly available clinical images with synthetic patient profiles to simulate realistic patient-clinician interactions. Each conversation is evaluated across three clinical dimensions: safety, accuracy, and appropriate use of uncertainty in diagnosis. We benchmark eight multimodal frontier models across four model families (Claude, GPT, Nova, and Llama), scoring each on a 1-5 scale using LLM-as-Jury scoring calibrated against expert clinician annotations. Our results show that Claude Opus 4.6 achieves the highest overall score (3.61), followed by Claude Sonnet 4.6 (3.30) and GPT-5.2 (3.29), though no model dominates all dimensions and safety degrades for both malignant and rare conditions ($Δ$ = -0.27 each). Ablation studies further reveal that both visual input and EHR context contribute to safe guidance (safety drops of 0.18 and 0.23 on average when each is removed), with stronger models leveraging visual features more effectively. Together, these findings demonstrate that accurate clinical description does not guarantee safe patient guidance, motivating the need for multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks in medical AI.

Large language models (LLMs) have shown promising performance across a wide range of biomedical applications, including medical question answering (QA), yet they remain prone to hallucinations and outdated knowledge. Although retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) can alleviate this issue by incorporating external documents, there still exist two fundamental limitations. First, medical knowledge is often fragmented across documents, while most RAG methods rely on a single retrieval path, which makes it challenging to jointly preserve fine-grained semantic information and structured global associations. Second, static retrieval strategies are typically insufficient to support deep reasoning that is important in complex medical QA. In this paper, we present a dual-path retrieval framework with an iterative retrieval-reasoning mechanism termed "Hybrid-IR" for complex medical QA. The proposed Hybrid-IR integrates graph-based retrieval for exploration of structured knowledge and dense retrieval for fine-grained semantic matching. Moreover, the reasoning trajectory can be progressively refined through an iterative retrieve-reason loop. Experiments on three widely used medical QA benchmarks demonstrate the effectiveness of our Hybrid-IR.

Text-based telemedicine increasingly relies on lightweight patient feedback, however, such feedback primarily reflects perceived communication quality rather than medical accuracy. We introduce an LM-guided counterfactual recommendation pipeline that discovers and refines interpretable communication features such as tone, personalization, actionability and completeness in addressing patient concerns, without interfering with the medical content. These features are used together with patient-doctor interaction metadata to estimate positive feedback. At inference time, the system searches over low-cost ordinal feature changes and recommends minimal communication changes predicted to increase the probability of positive feedback, while independent auditor models test whether these gains generalize beyond the selection model. Across interactions, recommendations yield a mean +6.41% gain in predicted positive feedback probability under independent auditors, and are non-negative for 93.31% of recommendations. These results suggest that small, interpretable communication changes can capture most predicted gains while preserving the doctor's control over medical reasoning and final wording.

The most plausible near-term role of medical LLMs is to assist rather than replace physicians, yet current evaluations often test isolated capabilities: clinical knowledge, EHR system interaction, or patient communication. Physician assistance instead requires coordinating these capabilities within the same interaction, where physicians issue underspecified requests, patients describe symptoms ambiguously, and EHR systems demand precise tool use. We introduce PhysAssistBench, a benchmark for interactive doctor-patient-EHR assistance. Built from real MIMIC-IV cases, PhysAssistBench uses a scalable pipeline to construct agentic patients: interactive, record-grounded agents that turn static EHR records into multi-turn clinical scenarios while preserving clinical factuality. PhysAssistBench provides a curated bilingual evaluation set of 1,296 manually reviewed and physician-validated turns. Experiments with leading LLMs show that current models remain unreliable in this setting, which exposes a key bottleneck for clinical LLMs: reliable assistance requires coordination across knowledge, communication, and systems, not isolated gains in any of them.

Medical image classification faces a fundamental dilemma: while deep learning models achieve remarkable performance at scale, real-world clinical scenarios often suffer from severe data scarcity due to annotation costs, privacy constraints, and disease rarity. This challenge is particularly pronounced in pathological scar classification, where differentiating keloids from hypertrophic scars requires subtle expert knowledge and labeled images are extremely limited. We propose a novel paradigm that repositions large language models (LLMs) as knowledge-driven feature engineers rather than end-to-end classifiers. We call this framework ScaFE (Scar Feature Engineering). Our key insight is that LLMs encode rich medical knowledge that can be externalized as executable feature extraction code, enabling the transformation of high-dimensional images into low-dimensional, clinically interpretable representations. Specifically, we prompt an LLM with established scar assessment criteria to generate deterministic Python code that extracts features aligned with clinical scoring systems such as the Vancouver Scar Scale. Our approach offers three key advantages: (1) data efficiency, achieving robust performance with limited training samples by decoupling knowledge acquisition from statistical learning; (2) privacy preservation, as raw images are processed locally without exposure to external LLMs; and (3) interpretability, through explicit features grounded in clinical reasoning. Extensive experiments on scar classification demonstrate that our method consistently outperforms end-to-end deep learning baselines or using LLMs as black-box classifiers under limited data conditions, establishing a promising direction for integrating LLMs into data-efficient and clinically transparent medical AI systems.

Depression is the leading cause of disability worldwide, and early detection of symptom change is essential for timely intervention. Validated instruments such as the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) support symptom monitoring at scale, but real-world completion rates are low, introducing response bias and systematic missingness. Passive approaches that infer severity from routinely generated data could close this gap. We address this by predicting PHQ-9 total scores directly from transcripts of conversations between users and an AI mental health application, requiring only conversation text and no additional clinical data. We fine-tune a Qwen3.5-27B backbone with a regression head, augment 3,111 ground-truth labels with pseudolabels generated by a reasoning model (Claude Opus) and iteratively trained intermediate models, for a combined dataset of 6,283 users. On a held-out test set of 842 users, our best model achieves MAE = 2.6, RMSE = 4.0, Pearson r = 0.80, and AUC = 0.91 at the PHQ-9 >= 10 clinical threshold. We also find AUC > 0.87 at every severity threshold from PHQ-9 >= 3 to PHQ-9 >= 24, demonstrating that the model captures depression severity across the full clinical spectrum. This work opens the door to passive, continuous symptom monitoring in AI mental health platforms, without requiring users to complete self-report measures.

Aggregate accuracy benchmarks conceal a systematic structure in how large language models fail at electronic health record (EHR) question answering: questions requiring more inferential steps produce disproportionately more errors. Motivated by theoretical results on transformer compositionality limits, we introduce a pre-specified hop-count taxonomy -- the number of distinct reasoning steps required to answer a clinical question from an EHR -- as a principled predictor of model failure. We annotate 313 clinician-generated MedAlign EHR question-answer pairs across four hop levels and evaluate 301 questions in a within-model ablation (claude-sonnet-4-6, zero-shot vs. extended thinking) and cross-architecture replications (gpt-4o and gpt-5.4-2026-03-05, zero-shot). All three models, spanning two providers and two OpenAI generations (GPT-4 and GPT-5), show monotone accuracy decline with hop count: Claude Sonnet zero-shot falls from 30.6% (hop=1) to 17.6% (hop=4) (Cochran-Armitage z=-2.30, p=0.011; OR per hop 0.72, 95% CI [0.56,0.92], p=0.008); GPT-4o replicates this (37.8% to 14.7%; OR 0.58 [0.45,0.75], p<0.001); and gpt-5.4-2026-03-05 confirms it (37.8% to 23.5%; OR 0.80 [0.66,0.98], p=0.027). A pre-specified context-sufficiency audit shows higher-hop questions are not differentially disadvantaged by EHR truncation (answerability 93-95% at hops 2-4 vs. 79% at hop=1), so the decline reflects compositional reasoning difficulty. Extended thinking did not significantly flatten the accuracy-depth curve across three reasoning conditions, and thinking-token usage scaled with hop count (r=0.31, p<0.0001), consistent with the predicted O(k) computational requirement. Hop count is thus a theory-motivated, cross-architecture predictor of large-language-model error on EHR question answering, with direct implications for deployment risk stratification of clinical AI.

Distinguishing causal adverse drug events (ADEs) from spurious correlations remains a central challenge in pharmacovigilance. The InferBERT framework integrates transformer models with Do-calculus, but its success hinges on the underlying classification model. This study evaluates the impact of model choice in InferBERT, assessing whether simpler models suffice, if domain-specific pre-training helps, whether scaling to LLMs improves causal detection, and the effect of post-hoc calibration. We performed a comparative study on two benchmarks: Analgesics-induced Acute Liver Failure (AILF) and Tramadol-related Mortalities (TRAM). Four models were evaluated-XGBoost (baseline), ALBERT (original InferBERT), BioBERT (biomedical transformer), and Med-LLaMA (medical LLM)-using 5-fold cross-validation repeated over 20 runs. We measured accuracy, Expected Calibration Error (ECE) pre- and post-isotonic regression, and Jaccard concordance of causal terms with PRR, ROR, and EBGM; significance was tested with paired t-tests. BioBERT achieved the highest accuracy on both datasets, while Med-LLaMA underperformed despite its size and parameter-efficient fine-tuning. Domain-specific pre-training was decisive. Calibration improved ECE but had mixed effects on accuracy and causal discovery. BioBERT's superiority also yielded the strongest concordance with traditional pharmacovigilance signals. These results show that domain-specific pre-training provides a clear advantage over simpler baselines and larger LLMs. Investing in manageable, domain-aware models is more effective for computational pharmacovigilance than simply scaling model size.

Electronic prior authorization workflows require FHIR Questionnaire items to carry LOINC codes, yet most items in the HL7 Da Vinci CDS-Library lack these bindings. We treat this as a retrieval problem: given a Questionnaire item's text, find the correct LOINC code in a pool of 97,314 active codes. We compare six methods (TF-IDF, frozen MiniLM, BioBERT, BioLORD, contrastively fine-tuned MiniLM, and a TF-IDF+GPT reranker) on a 54-item evaluation set spanning three query styles (natural question, medium, and terse). No single method wins on every metric. BioLORD, a frozen encoder pre-trained on biomedical ontology definitions, has the best top-rank accuracy (R@1 = 0.185, MRR = 0.246) despite seeing no task-specific data, while a contrastive fine-tune on raw LHC-Forms pairs takes R@5 (0.389) and R@10 (0.426). A distribution-shift ablation shows why the fine-tune in our main table is not the strongest one: adding GPT-generated paraphrases to the raw pairs drops R@5 from 0.389 to 0.296, so the augmented union underperforms raw-only training on every metric except R@1. Performance peaks at 5k training pairs. Error analysis on BioLORD's R@1 failures shows that wrong-specificity and ambiguous-text cases together account for 59% of errors.

Large language models (LLMs) in medicine are mainly evaluated using multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), which can overestimate real clinical ability due to guessing strategies and answer biases. To address these limitations, we introduce an expanded and more challenging benchmark based on Polish medical exams, adding over 15,000 questions, two new domains, and four structural modifications that reduce MCQA-specific artifacts and better test reasoning. We evaluate 21 LLMs and show that evaluation design strongly affects results. Under our harder setup, the best model (Qwen3.5-122B) drops by 28.4 and 31 pp on English and Polish exams, respectively. Despite low evidence of data contamination, standard MCQA scores do not reliably reflect true medical competence. To facilitate further research, we make our benchmark publicly available.

Automatic Depression Detection (ADD) from clinical interviews is a pivotal task in computational mental health, yet it remains challenging due to two critical obstacles: 1) difficulty in modeling complex but sparsely distributed depression clues within lengthy, multi-topic clinical interviews, leading to superficial and unreliable reasoning; 2) scarcity of labeled data due to clinical privacy, together with high cost of training and fine-tuning, limiting the deployment of supervised ADD systems. To jointly address these challenges, we propose Dep-LLM, a training-free framework that mirrors the step-by-step reasoning of clinical psychiatrists and operates entirely on frozen off-the-shelf foundation LLMs. Dep-LLM comprises three stages. First, a Chain-of-Thought (CoT) Depression Multi-factor Analysis module structurally decomposes the long dialogue into five clinically aligned themes and produces evidence-grounded rationales, effectively handling long-context dependencies. Second, we introduce Confidence Analysis and Modulation module that quantifies the epistemic reliability from token-level entropy of each rationale and applies an intra-label and inter-theme modulation that amplifies trustworthy signals while suppressing uncertain ones without extra training. Third, a Collaborative Multi-factor Prediction module dynamically integrates multi-factor signals weighted by confidence into the final diagnosis. Extensive experiments on the DAIC-WOZ and E-DAIC datasets demonstrate the effectiveness and generalizability of Dep-LLM: it surpasses zero-shot baseline on nearly all 21 foundation LLMs across 9 metrics such as accuracy, macro F1 and weighted-average F1, and further outperforms state-of-the-art supervised domain-specific LLMs as well as the latest closed-source commercial LLMs, while requiring no extra training.

Reliable evaluation of large language models in surgery remains underdeveloped. Broad medical benchmarks test clinical knowledge, while surgery requires procedural reasoning, management trade-offs, negation handling, and selection among plausible operative decisions. We present SurgiQ, a text-only, source-grounded benchmark of 13,055 four-option multiple-choice questions spanning six surgical domains and four question formats: case-based, reasoning, best-option, and negative. SurgiQ is constructed from surgical textbooks, open-access papers, and examination material using a multi-stage generation, verification, and expert-audit pipeline. We evaluate 35 open-weight LLMs under a unified log-likelihood protocol. Our results show substantial remaining headroom: smaller models often remain near the 25% random baseline, while the best model reaches 68.1% accuracy. General-purpose models, especially Qwen2.5, outperform most biomedical models, suggesting that current medical specialization does not yet provide sufficiently broad surgical coverage. Calibration and error analysis further show that even strong models make confident mistakes on clinically plausible distractors, motivating more reliable and broader surgical LLM evaluation.

Telehealth systems have become increasingly important for delivering accessible and timely medical information. Existing large language models often struggle to provide consistent and contextually appropriate medical responses across varying levels of case severity. This limitation highlights the need for models that can effectively adapt to the progressive complexity in medical queries. To address this challenge, we introduce a severity-aware multi-model framework that integrates curriculum training strategy with relevance-based response selection. The proposed framework employs a three-stage curriculum learning strategy, where each model is trained sequentially on mild, moderate, and critical cases to progressively acquire domain knowledge. The approach uses five large language models, each trained independently under the same curriculum. During inference, all models generate candidate responses, and the response with highest BERTScore is selected as the final output. The framework is trained and evaluated on the MAQA dataset, which provides annotated medical question-answer pairs. Experimental results evaluated using BERTScore demonstrate that the proposed method achieves superior performance compared to both baseline and fine-tuned models, attaining 86.71% in the baseline setting and 90.30% after fine-tuning. These results highlight the effectiveness of combining curriculum learning with multi-model response selection in improving response quality and relevance in medical text generation.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for everyday health questions, including whether a user can safely take another dose of an over-the-counter (OTC) medication. Yet this common safety-relevant setting remains underexplored in existing medical QA evaluations, where correct answers require tracking dose timing, computing rolling 24-hour intake, following product-label constraints, and handling incomplete medication histories. We introduce DOSEBENCH, a focused benchmark of 81 curated OTC dosing scenarios focused on adult acetaminophen and ibuprofen use, with manually annotated gold references. We evaluate four LLMs across repeated runs using metrics for decision correctness, consistency, explanation verifiability, failure types, and confidence-related signals, resulting in 1,620 model responses. Our results show that models frequently struggle with rolling-window reasoning and ambiguity-sensitive cases and that stable or confident-looking responses can still violate dosing constraints. These findings suggest that OTC dosing QA provides a narrow yet practical testbed for evaluating temporal reasoning, constraint following, and safety-relevant uncertainty handling in medical QA.

Medical question answering is a high-stakes setting where factual errors can have serious consequences. Retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) is widely viewed as a promising solution, and prior work has reported substantial gains for large medical QA models. We revisit this assumption across a broad range of open-weight instruction-tuned models spanning 7B to 72B parameters. Across five models, ten biomedical QA datasets, four retrieval methods, and four retrieval corpora, we find that retrieval yields only small and inconsistent improvements over a no-retrieval baseline, typically within 1-2 points. In contrast, the choice of backbone model has a much larger effect than the choice of retriever or corpus, and expert and layman retrieval sources perform similarly in most settings. These results suggest that the main bottleneck is not retrieval quality alone, but the model's limited ability to use retrieved evidence effectively.

Recent evidence shows that people with eating disorders (EDs) are increasingly seeking guidance, advice, and emotional support from Large Language Model (LLM)-based chat systems. Although these systems are not designed to provide clinical advice, their perceived expertise, neutrality and accessibility make them a frequent, albeit risky, source of support. This paper investigates potential patterns of interaction between users with EDs and LLMs, focusing on the potential harms arising from models that uncritically adapt to, and facilitate unsafe or self-harming user requests. We find, in consultation with clinical ED experts, that specific linguistic cues in prompts increase the likelihood of unsafe responses and, through systematically varying the degree of potential risk present in the user prompt, report the extent to which LLMs uncritically adapt to problematic, and potentially dangerous user inputs.

Drug-information question answering is a high-stakes setting where hallucinated facts can mislead clinical decision-making and the provenance of each cited fact matters as much as the fact itself. We present DrugClaw, a multi-agent retrieval-augmented system that queries a registry of drug and pharmacovigilance skills via a reflection-driven state-machine workflow and returns answers grounded in primary regulatory or peer-reviewed records. We also contribute DrugAudit, a 3,772-item authority-aware benchmark with an evaluation panel that scores upstream-of-gold source match, token-level semantic snippet overlap, and citation faithfulness under a dual-judge LLM-as-judge protocol with inter-judge kappa = 0.88 (almost-perfect). Across DrugAudit plus drug-related subsets of MedQA (751) and PubMedQA (512), DrugClaw is top-1 on every column of the headline table: composite Evidence Index under both judges, judge-mediated answer correctness, primary-source rate (0.918, +10.1 pp over next-best), faithfulness (0.887, +5.9 pp), MedQA (0.920), and PubMedQA (0.693).

Biomedical question answering with large language models is commonly evaluated using answer accuracy, but answer accuracy alone does not indicate whether a model can produce parseable outputs, follow structured reliability instructions, recognize weak answer spaces, or avoid confident incorrect commitments. This paper presents HypothesisMed, an inference-time reliability pipeline for biomedical multiple-choice question answering. It combines direct, chain-of-thought, HypothesisMed-v3 prompting, and answer fusion. The final answer is selected by fusion, while HypothesisMed-v3 supplies SPACE labels and confidence information. SPACE labels mark the answer space as VALID, INCOMPLETE, or CONTRADICTED. We evaluate Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4-mini, DeepSeek-R1-32B, and BioMistral-7B on MedQA, MedMCQA, and PubMedQA using 1,000 examples per dataset. The pipeline improves weighted accuracy over each model's best direct or chain-of-thought baseline while increasing parse and SPACE coverage. We also scale evaluation to Qwen2.5-7B and Phi-4-mini using 10,183 examples per model. Fusion improves Phi-4-mini accuracy from 0.4296 to 0.5192, while Qwen2.5-7B chain-of-thought remains slightly higher in answer accuracy. However, Qwen2.5-7B fusion achieves complete parse and SPACE coverage with much lower false commitment. A 12,000-example SPACE stress test shows answer-space diagnosis remains difficult, with SPACE accuracy of 0.3074 for Qwen2.5-7B and 0.4168 for Phi-4-mini. These results show that answer accuracy, parseability, structured reliability reporting, calibration behavior, and false-commitment behavior are separable capabilities. The main contribution is not a universal state-of-the-art claim, but a reproducible inference-time framework for evaluating biomedical question answering models as auditable workflow components under structured reliability constraints.

Patient-facing medical chatbots are commonly evaluated on single-turn prompts, yet real users push back after refusals, add urgency, and invoke authority. We introduce MultiTurnPSB, a four-turn adversarial extension of PatientSafetyBench, and evaluate GPT-4.1-mini under fixed template, template-adaptive, and live adversarial attacks. Unsafe responses rise from 35% to nearly 80% by Turn 4 under live attack. Under the same adversary, GPT-4.1-mini and Claude Sonnet 4.5 are statistically indistinguishable at baseline but diverge to a 19x gap by Turn 4, a difference invisible to single-turn evaluation. We characterize four degradation trajectory signatures and identify a two-element attack formula responsible for most catastrophic failures. A lightweight input-side classifier reduces Turn 4 unsafe responses by 52 percentage points despite severe accuracy degradation, but the 45% false alarm rate on benign queries is the primary deployment constraint. A methodological finding also emerges: Claude Sonnet refused to generate adversarial messages in over half of late-turn conversations despite explicit red team framing, suggesting safety training may generalize to the attacker role.

The FETCH classifier generates follow-up questions to help refine the best match for the applicant's legal problem, using a low-cost ensemble of LLMs. In this paper, we describe an expert attorney and LLM-assisted evaluation of the follow-up question approach in FETCH and show that while low-cost LLMs perform well at classification tasks, generating high-quality plain-language questions in this setting appears to require a more sophisticated and higher-cost model. Through discussion with legal intake workers, we propose a rubric for the evaluation of legal intake classification questions, and we find that prompt engineering alone is not enough to improve question quality for intake purposes. We also find that LLM-as-judge and human ratings diverge. We demonstrate that with the addition of a single high-cost model, GPT-5, the classifier can elicit relevant information from applicants for legal help, and that the questions lead to more accurate performance at classification tasks. We also find uneven fact elicitation across different categories, including domestic violence, at odds with family law screening protocols, suggesting the value of including dedicated screening panels for certain areas of law.

A retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) system deployed over a multi-author institutional corpus can give a different answer to the same question depending on which source it retrieves -- a failure mode the dominant single-gold-answer paradigm cannot diagnose. We argue that source-dependence is a missing axis of NLP evaluation, and that auditing it means shifting the unit of evaluation from answer correctness to the inter-source relationship. We make this concrete in transplant patient education, where institutional sources demonstrably disagree, releasing three artefacts: TransplantQA, a benchmark of real patient questions, each answered by grounding generation in multiple institutional handbooks as candidate sources; HERO-QA, a hierarchical retrieval strategy that grounds and audits each answer; and a structured-output judge that scores inter-source relationships on a validated 5-label taxonomy. At scale, better retrieval reveals far more disagreement than prior estimates suggested -- understating its prevalence, not its intensity. The framework is domain-agnostic and transfers to legal and educational RAG: measuring source-dependence is a responsibility for deployed multi-source NLP generally.

Clinical foundation models are evaluated with factual or exam-style medical QA, but treatment decisions must change when patient context changes. We introduce ClinPivot, an auditable treatment-decision benchmark built from biomedical relations and pivoted patient contexts. ClinPivot asks whether models change treatment choices when new clinical constraints shift the action space. We find that strong medical QA performance does not reliably predict decision-making performance: frontier models and task-adapted Qwen variants often fail to change decisions correctly, and model rankings shift across evaluation regimes. Decision-structured supervision improves pivot-sensitive decision-making and medical QA under matched knowledge budgets, while lightweight replay reduces losses in general assistant ability.

Existing safety evaluations for large language models overlook whether responses preserve comparable medical information across different user phrasings of the same question. To address this, we introduce the Medical Information Response Audit (MIRA), a bilingual, controlled benchmark that assesses whether LLMs provide comparable medical information across user-side language, register, and health literacy signals. MIRA contains 4,320 prompts built from 60 medically reviewed, low-risk health questions. Across five mainstream LLMs, models answered all medical questions, but responses to low health-literacy signals consistently omitted more key information, provided fewer concrete next steps, and offered less support for independent judgment. We term this pattern Differential Information Dilution (DID). A comparison with 300 real-world health queries provides preliminary evidence of rank-order validity. A knowledge-guided mitigation prompt reduces information dilution for most models, with the largest reductions in underinformative simplification observed for Claude (~8%) and Qwen (~6%). Code and data are available at https://github.com/Rainxu09/MIRA.

The advancement of general medical Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) has shown great potential for building conversational assistants to support clinical diagnosis. However, their adaptation to highly specialized domains such as ophthalmology remains underexplored, primarily due to the scarcity of large-scale, domain-specific instruction-tuning data. Existing ophthalmic datasets for conversational agents are often limited in scale and largely rely on images from established public benchmarks, limiting the scalability of ophthalmic MLLMs and their ability to capture real-world clinical complexity. To address this gap, we propose $\textbf{OphIn-Engine}$, an ophthalmology-specific instruction data curation pipeline that constructs high-quality instruction data from open-access ophthalmology web-scale videos. The pipeline integrates multimodal transcription for extracting image-transcript pairs, visual cue separation and scoring for identifying clinically relevant visual descriptions, and instruction synthesis with quality control for generating accurate and diverse clinical dialogues. Using this engine, we introduce $\textbf{OphIn-500K}$, a large-scale multimodal ophthalmology instruction-tuning dataset containing over 500,000 instruction instances and more than 151,000 unique images from over 29,000 video clips, formatted as visual question answering (VQA), multi-turn conversational interactions, and chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning. Built upon this dataset, we further develop $\textbf{OphIn-VL}$, an ophthalmology-specific MLLM with advanced visual understanding and conversational capabilities. Comprehensive experiments and case studies demonstrate that OphIn-VL achieves superior performance compared with state-of-the-art general medical and domain-specific MLLMs.

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for medical and health-related questions, yet their safety in high-risk medical scenarios remains poorly understood. We introduce \textsc{MedHarm}\footnote{Code and data will be released upon acceptance. Due to the sensitive nature of high-risk medical queries, data access will be available to qualified researchers upon request.}, a high-risk medical safety benchmark with 1,100 medically grounded queries across 10 safety-critical categories, including toxicology, pharmacology, covert poisoning, anesthesia, and fetal harm. Unlike broad medical QA benchmarks, \textsc{MedHarm} targets realistic clinical, educational, and technical prompts that require refusal, caution, or safe redirection rather than direct helpfulness. We evaluate 15 LLMs spanning general-purpose, medical-purpose, closed-source, and downstream SFT models, together with 4 representative guardrail models. Results reveal a substantial gap between apparent alignment and medical safety: aligned models can still produce unsafe or actionable responses, medical fine-tuning can amplify harmful specificity, and external guardrails reduce some failures while introducing brittle blocking and weak safe helpfulness. These findings show that medical safety cannot be inferred from general alignment or medical capability alone, highlighting the need for domain-specific stress testing before deploying LLMs in safety-critical medical applications.

Large Language Models (LLMs) have brought huge improvements to Artificial Intelligence (AI), which can be applied to general-purpose tasks. However, their application to textual or spoken medical consultations is still an open research problem. This paper proposes MeDial-Speech, a novel speech dataset for training and evaluating Med-AIs that can carry out consultations with patients. It was collected in realistic environments from robot-patient and doctor-patient dialogues, contains 111+ hours of speech data (without data augmentation), and covers four health conditions: Lewy body dementia, heart failure, shoulder pain, and angina. In addition, we propose a dialogue benchmark via sentence selection (with 20 options) to evaluate three state-of-the-art LLMs: GPT-5 mini, DeepSeek-V3, and Claude Sonnet 4. Experimental results reveal that Claude Sonnet 4 is the best in sentence selection, with 71.1% accuracy using manual transcriptions and 74.7% using automatic transcriptions, and that all LLMs are highly overconfident in their probabilistic predictions, regardless of selecting correct or incorrect sentences in medical dialogues. This dataset is free of charge for non-commercial purposes at: https://huggingface.co/datasets/hcuayahu/MeDial-Speech

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) is increasingly used for health information, yet its influence on users' trust calibration remains unclear. Objective: This study examines whether learned dependency on GenAI influences trust in AI-generated health information and whether text highlighting reduces overreliance on incorrect outputs. Methods: Two randomized controlled experiments were conducted with 338 college students and 563 Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. Both experiments used a 2 by 2 between-subjects design manipulating information accuracy (correct versus incorrect) and text highlighting (highlight versus no highlight). Trust and learned dependency were measured using validated scales, and linear regression models tested main and interaction effects. Results: In both experiments, information accuracy significantly increased trust (p < 0.001), while learned dependency was positively associated with trust (p < 0.05). The interaction between accuracy and dependency was significant (p < 0.001), indicating that highly dependent users were more likely to trust incorrect AI-generated information. Text highlighting had no significant effect on trust and did not moderate the relationship between dependency and trust. Conclusions: Learned dependency weakens trust calibration, increasing susceptibility to inaccurate AI-generated health information. Text highlighting alone is insufficient to reduce overreliance, highlighting the need for more effective interface designs that encourage critical evaluation of GenAI outputs.

The growing adoption of AI in healthcare, particularly in preventive care, highlights the critical need for accessibility and precision in Medical Question Answering (MedQA). In recent years, significant efforts have been made to develop multi-span medical question-answering systems, where the answer to a query may span multiple sections or paragraphs of a source document. However, existing systems fall short of aligning with real-world scenarios, where source documents often include both textual and visual content, requiring answers to incorporate images for better comprehension. To address this gap, we propose $M^3QAFrame$, a multi-modal, multi-span medical question-answering framework that leverages visual cues to enhance the generation of comprehensive answers drawn from diverse textual and visual spans. The model takes the context, query, and images as input and outputs an answer containing both textual answers and relevant images. The text and image embeddings are processed using a transformer-based architecture to determine the sentence and image relevance. We curate a multi-modal, multi-span medical question-answering ($M^3 QuestionIng$) dataset containing queries, medical contexts, associated medical images, and extractive answers. Additionally, each query-answer pair is labeled with user intent and query type to enhance query and context comprehension. Extensive experiments show that our approach consistently outperforms existing methods across various evaluation metrics.

Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is widely employed to mitigate risks such as hallucinations and knowledge obsolescence in medical question answering, yet its predominantly single-round, static retrieval paradigm misaligns with the multi-stage process of clinical reasoning. This compressed workflow induces two structural deficiencies: question-to-query translation often lacks clinically grounded semantic interpretation, and retrieval lacks iterative sufficiency feedback, making it difficult to form reliable evidence chains. We argue that both issues stem from a deeper cause: overloading a single reasoning chain with heterogeneous tasks of interpretation, exploration, and adjudication. The remedy is to reconstruct the workflow via task decoupling and dynamic multi-round exploration. To this end, we propose SEMA-RAG, a Self-Evolving Multi-Agent RAG framework for medical question answering, which assigns these roles to three specialist agents: the Interpreter Agent for clinical schema interpretation, the Explorer Agent for sufficiency-driven self-evolving retrieval, and the Arbiter Agent for evidence adjudication and answer selection. Across five benchmarks and five LLM backbones, SEMA-RAG improves the strongest baseline by +6.46 accuracy points on average, measured per backbone.