Medical QA

Medical question answering spans specialties and clinical operations that may benefit from different adaptation directions. We propose ARBOR, a parameter-efficient method that selects rank-one components from a shared low-rank basis for each question. An additive gate combines question representations, specialty tags, operation tags, and their interaction; a learned coefficient scales the adapter residual. An illustrative separation under orthogonal, equiprobable subtasks shows how conditional selection can avoid an approximation floor faced by a fixed update with the same active rank. This result motivates the design without asserting a corresponding bound for medical corpora. On Qwen3-8B across CMB, CMExam, MedQA, and MedMCQA, five-seed experiments yield 69.69% mean accuracy across benchmarks, exceeding LoRA r16 and MoELoRA by 1.26 and 1.30 percentage points, respectively. The reported advantage over LoRA r16 increases from 0.08 to 1.94 points as training expands from one to seven specialties. Tag perturbations and atom masking support the usefulness of clinical routing, while atom clusters align with the supplied specialty labels (adjusted Rand index 0.62). Calibration, transfer, and measured costs further characterize the method. These findings support structured conditional adaptation for medical QA, while leaving clinical safety and broader deployment untested.

Jev is a non-generative "System One" model that assigns probabilities to predefined answer options and cannot answer outside them. Its accuracy and calibration on medical question-answering and case-based diagnostic-reasoning tasks are unknown. We evaluated Jev 1.13 on four medical benchmarks: MetaMedQA, PubMedQA, DiagnosisArena-MCQ and the NEJM Case Challenges. GPT-6 Sol, with (medium) and without reasoning, was the reference. The primary outcome was top-1 accuracy; key secondary outcomes were calibration, selective prediction and recognition of unanswerable questions. All 8,469 requests returned a valid answer. Jev's accuracy was similar to that of GPT-6 Sol with medium reasoning on PubMedQA (78.4% vs 78.2%;), lower on MetaMedQA (74.8% vs 82.7%) and much lower on DiagnosisArena-MCQ (59.8% vs 82.4%;) and the NEJM cases (61.8% vs 82.4%). On MetaMedQA, Jev's probabilities were the best calibrated (expected calibration error 0.063 vs 0.146), and its answers with a probability of at least 0.9 (52.9% of questions) were 93.4% accurate, but GPT-6 Sol was as accurate when it accepted a similar proportion of questions. On DiagnosisArena-MCQ, Jev's probabilities discriminated poorly (AUROC 0.645 vs 0.768). Of the 162 questions whose correct answer was "I don't know or cannot answer", Jev chose that option for 10.5% (GPT-6 Sol, 8.6%). Median latency was 0.27-0.31 s; all 2,823 items cost USD 0.08. Jev was fast and inexpensive, and its accuracy was similar to that of a frontier LLM on research abstracts but lower on examination questions and much lower on complex diagnostic cases. Task-specific validation is required before clinical use.

Cancer registrars, including Oncology Data Specialists (ODSs), must interpret complex and frequently updated coding and staging standards. We developed CRISS (Cancer Registry Intelligent Support System), a retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) conversational assistant that provides rapid, citation-supported access to registry guidance. This study evaluated whether CRISS could (1) support accurate and citation-supported responses, (2) improve access to and interpretation of relevant guidance, and (3) support training/helpdesk use while preserving human oversight of final abstraction decisions. We built a domain-specific knowledge base from national cancer registry standards, segmented into metadata-tagged passages and indexed as dense embeddings. Retrieved passages were used to generate citation-grounded responses through a large language model (LLM). Open-weight, proprietary, and non-RAG baseline models across Gemini and GPT families were evaluated on easy, medium, and hard registry questions using an LLM-as-a-Judge protocols. RAG configurations consistently outperformed non-RAG approaches, especially as question difficulty increased. Mean grounding scores for RAG were 0.62/0.56/0.59 across easy/medium/hard tiers versus 0.29/0.26/0.29 for non-RAG. RAG models also achieved higher semantic-similarity scores overall. Proprietary RAG models performed strongest on easy and medium questions, while local RAG models ranked highest on hard questions and proprietary models were generally more cautious. Domain-specific RAG improved evidence grounding and response quality for cancer registry questions while enabling citation-supported assistance across complexity levels. CRISS demonstrates the potential of human-centered, citation-grounded AI to support cancer registrars while preserving human oversight for final coding decisions.

Test-time reinforcement learning adapts a model on its own unlabeled test set using majority-vote pseudo-labels and has shown strong results in mathematics. We show that this recipe collapses on medical multiple-choice QA: accuracy stagnates while output diversity rapidly declines. Through a controlled experiment that keeps the questions, model, and optimizer fixed while changing only the answer space, we trace this failure to answer-space structure rather than domain difficulty. In small answer spaces, incorrect rollouts often collide on the same wrong pseudo-label and reinforce it; in large answer spaces, they disperse and receive little reward. This diagnosis motivates PROSE, Process Reward Guided Self-Training, which rewards reasoning quality instead of answer agreement. PROSE scores each reasoning step with a medical process reward model, assigns the trajectory reward as the minimum score across steps, and enforces answer-format constraints. Without labels, PROSE substantially improves a general Llama model, surpassing purpose-built medical models and matching much larger systems. Because the process signal is internalized into the policy, the adapted model requires no reward model at inference and transfers its gains to unseen datasets. We further show that the minimum aggregation is essential: mean aggregation can be exploited, saturating the proxy reward while degrading accuracy.

Medical question-answering datasets often contain answer labels, whereas high-quality rationales remain scarce, noisy, or costly to validate. This changes the acquisition question: rather than asking which questions should be labeled, we ask which already-labeled questions should receive rationale supervision under a fixed token budget. We study an offline version of this problem in which candidate rationales are visible to the selector but withheld from downstream training unless selected. We propose root-mean-square Robustness-based Sample Prioritization (RMS-RSP), which perturbs hidden states only at rationale tokens and measures the resulting shift in the gold-versus-best-distractor margin. Across five medical QA datasets, MedGemma-4B-IT, three training seeds, ten budgeted non-RSP selectors, and an unbudgeted full-supervision reference, RMS-RSP provides a deliberately qualified result. Its locked-budget accuracy is 60.61% on average versus 60.08% for Random, with a statistically resolved gain only on AfriMed-QA (+1.44 points). Its full-budget accuracy area is not better than Random. However, after three answer-option reorderings, RMS-RSP improves robust accuracy and semantic consistency by 1.91 and 2.85 points on average, respectively, with the same direction on all five datasets. Training on every pool rationale raises macro accuracy to 63.74%, but consumes 29--254 times more rationale tokens and does not uniformly improve robustness. These findings do not establish universal accuracy gains; they instead suggest that rationale-local boundary sensitivity can identify supervision that improves invariance to semantically equivalent formatting changes.

Large language models now answer medical questions with expert-level performance. However, the context these systems act on can be misleading, and misleading context can corrupt a model's medical judgment. To understand how misleading context corrupts this judgment, we examine the model's susceptibility to the context, disclosure of it, mechanism of corrupted reasoning, and monitorability of the decision. On the medical reasoning subset of MedMisBench, a clinician-reviewed question-answering benchmark of 8,627 questions, we inject two types of misleading context cues, fabricated evidence and a bare assertion. We test three reasoning models, two that expose their full reasoning trace and one frontier model that exposes only its response. All three are more susceptible to the assertion than to the fabricated evidence, adopting the asserted answer 10 to 27 points more often. The misleading cues are disclosed in 81 to 98% of traces but only 7 to 90% of responses, and the assertion is disclosed less often than evidence based cues. Resampling from reasoning traces without disclosure shows the two cues corrupt reasoning differently, evidence entering early and accumulating while the assertion redirects the conclusion near its end. An LLM monitor catches 78% of corrupted decisions at 5% false positives when reading an open model's trace with guidance, against at most 32% from any response. The misleading context that models are most susceptible to is disclosed least, and was caught reliably only from an open reasoning trace, which frontier providers withhold.

Electrocardiogram (ECG) interpretation requires knowledge of cardiology, electrophysiology, clinical diagnosis, ECG waveforms, signal acquisition, and instrumentation. Existing language-model benchmarks, however, primarily assess broad medical knowledge or interpretation of individual ECG signals and images rather than the broader contextual knowledge required for ECG interpretation. We developed ECGQuest, a literature-grounded resource for evaluating and fine-tuning ECG-specific language models. A GPT-4o-based pipeline generated questions from 23 ECG references and Computing in Cardiology proceedings from 2003-2025. The final dataset contains 10,904 unique True/False questions paired with their negated forms (21,808 Q&A pairs). We evaluated three commercial and 20 open-source language models on a held-out test set in a zero-shot setting. Five open-source models with 7-14B parameters were fine-tuned using Low-Rank Adaptation, with BERT and BiomedBERT included as supervised encoder baselines. Generalization was assessed on ECG-related subsets of MedMCQA and MedQA converted to binary True/False questions using official answer keys. Zero-shot accuracy on ECGQuest ranged from 49.5% to 74.4%, with GPT-5 performing best. General-purpose models outperformed medically specialized models, several models showed strong True/False bias, and encoder baselines performed near chance. Fine-tuning improved all open-source models by 6.5-14.1%. Fine-tuned DeepSeek-R1-Distill-Qwen-14B reached 76.3% accuracy, while a five-model voting ensemble reached 78.5%. On MedMCQA and MedQA, fine-tuning mainly benefited weaker or class-biased models and did not consistently improve strong base models. ECGQuest provides a reproducible benchmark for contextual ECG knowledge and shows that parameter-efficient fine-tuning can make smaller language models competitive with substantially larger commercial models.

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.

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 strategically selected subset of a newly curated 90-million-token Persian medical corpus (approximately 54 million tokens) together with 20,000 expert-vetted physician Q&A pairs (approximately 3 million tokens), for a total of 57 million new tokens. This training improved performance on a translated medical MMLU benchmark from 46.64% 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 models 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.

Large Language Models (LLMs) perform strongly in English medical tasks but degrade substantially in Arabic, a gap widely attributed to limited training data. We systematically investigate this assumption via tuned lens probing and causal activation patching, and find that Arabic medical knowledge is present in intermediate model representations but fails to surface at the output. This mechanistic insight motivates a targeted adaptation strategy: rather than fine-tuning the full network, we propose Targeted Low-Rank Adaptation (TLoRA), restricted to the layer window where cross-lingual representations diverge, upstream of the output layers where the failure manifests. We evaluate TLoRA on multiple-choice medical QA, where our approach outperforms full-network LoRA, zero-shot, and few-shot baselines. We further evaluate it on short-answer generation and multi-turn clinical dialogue, where it performs competitively without the need for task-specific finetuning. We additionally introduce AraClinicDialog, a clinician-constructed Arabic medical dialogue benchmark in MSA with validated variants across four Arabic dialects. Together, these contributions demonstrate that mechanistic diagnosis can serve as a practical guide for targeted adaptation in underrepresented-language medical LLMs.

Open medical language models have converged on a single scale: every widely used system runs at 7B parameters or more, leaving the sub-billion regime uncharacterized. We present MedLLM, an open 0.1B-parameter medical language model trained through a fully open three-phase pipeline: general pretraining with curriculum sequence-length scheduling, domain fine-tuning on MedFineWeb, a reference-guided medical corpus we release that is selected from general web data by embedding similarity to medical question-answering (QA) data, and preference-aligned fine-tuning combining SFT with direct preference optimization (DPO). Across medical benchmarks, MedLLM shows a pattern visible only at sub-billion scale: medical competence does not degrade uniformly under compression but splits by task type. On context-grounded QA it comes within $2.9$pp of a medically adapted 7B model and surpasses the instruction-tuned and general-purpose 7B baselines; on knowledge-recall QA it stays near the task floor on clinical-vignette MedQA yet significantly exceeds every 7B and sub-7B baseline on MedMCQA, indicating that where recall fails the constraint is model capacity rather than adaptation. This dissociation is masked at 7B, where both capabilities are present, and surfaces only when capacity is scarce.

In medical multiple-choice question answering (MCQA), Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) can supplement the domain knowledge of language models (LMs). However, since vanilla RAG indiscriminately utilizes retrieved documents, it can degrade LM performance. To address this, we propose MedJudgeRAG. Our framework represents retrieved documents as a dynamic knowledge graph (KG) composed of entities and relations. For each option, the model judges an evidence verdict from the retrieved documents and the KG. Based on the verdict combination, the model determines a knowledge utilization strategy to reason toward the final answer. These capabilities are trained via supervised fine-tuning using structured reasoning traces generated by a teacher LM. The training employs a weighted cross-entropy loss that differentially weights the KG and reasoning segments. Experiments on two medical MCQA benchmarks demonstrate that MedJudgeRAG consistently outperforms both vanilla RAG and parametric baselines. Furthermore, ablation analysis reveals that the dynamic KG is more effective as graph-conditioned supervision at training time than as an explicit output at inference time. Our code is available at https://github.com/hyu-amllab/medjudgerag, and the generated reasoning traces are released at https://huggingface.co/datasets/youarethewon/medjudgerag.

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.

Navigating the deluge of heterogeneous medical data, from academic literature (PubMed) to clinical guidelines (Web) and private knowledge bases, remains a critical bottleneck for evidence-based medicine. While commercial black-box tools lack transparency, standard open-source RAG implementations frequently suffer from reasoning drift when handling complex, long-tail queries. We present DEEPMED Search, a fully open-source, agentic platform designed for transparent medical deep research. Built on a high-performance Next.js architecture, DEEPMED Search features a source-adaptive router that autonomously dispatches sub-queries to PubMed, web search, or local graph-based knowledge bases based on information density. Crucially, the platform integrates an introspective verification module, powered by a causal-consistent multi-agent debate framework, to validate retrieved evidence against diagnostic logic before synthesis. To demonstrate its robustness, we showcase DEEPMED Search's ability to autonomously decompose high-difficulty rare disease queries, filter out confounding noise, and generate structured, citation-backed research reports in minutes. By open-sourcing this software, we provide the community with a robust infrastructure to democratize access to trustworthy, glass-box medical reasoning in research and prototyping settings.

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.

The development of large language models (LLMs) has led to an increased focus on their adaptation to specialized domains and languages, yet the effectiveness of domain adaptation strategies remains unclear. We present a study of medical domain adaptation using French medical question-answering (QA) as a case study. We compare continual pretraining (CPT), supervised fine-tuning (SFT), and their combination across three model families, multiple sizes, and three initialization types, explicitly disentangling adaptation effects from base model choice. We evaluate both multiple-choice (MCQA) and open-ended QA (OEQA) under greedy and constrained decoding using automatic metrics and LLM-as-a-Judge evaluation. For MCQA, CPT+SFT most often achieves the best scores, but gains over SFT are small and frequently not statistically significant, making SFT a strong and cost-effective default. For OEQA, CPT consistently improves overlap-based metrics, while SFT often degrades generation quality; instruction tuning and CPT+SFT are preferred by LLM-based evaluation. Cross-lingual experiments further show effective transfer from French adaptation to English benchmarks. Overall, we provide practical guidelines for selecting adaptation strategies under computational constraints.

Objective: To enhance the accuracy, interpretability, and robustness of large language models (LLMs) in medical question answering (MedQA). Method: We designed a multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method in which multiple LLM agents independently generate chain-of-thought reasoning with candidate answers, then act as peer reviewers to evaluate each other's reasoning for factual correctness and logical soundness. The highest-rated reasoning chain is selected to produce the final answer. Experiments were conducted with five state-of-the-art LLMs (Llama-3.1-8B, Qwen2.5-7B, Phi-4, DeepSeek-LLM-7B, GPT-oss-20B) on three benchmark datasets: HeadQA, MedQA-USMLE, and PubMedQA. Performance was compared against single-model chain-of-thought reasoning and chain-of-thought-based majority voting. Results: Peer-reviewed reasoning consistently outperformed both baselines. The best model combination achieved an average accuracy of 0.820 across datasets, exceeding the strongest single model (0.777) and majority voting ensembles (up to 0.789). The method also scaled effectively with more participating models, while peer assessments reliably distinguished high- from low-quality reasoning chains. Conclusion: The proposed multi-agent peer-reviewed reasoning method enables LLMs to act as both solvers and evaluators, yielding superior performance in MedQA. By emphasizing reasoning quality rather than answer agreement alone, this approach improves accuracy, interpretability, and robustness, offering a promising direction for trustworthy biomedical AI systems.

Knowledge graphs (KGs) have emerged as a promising solution for integrating and reasoning over complex biomedical and clinical data in healthcare. By representing structured relationships among entities such as diseases, drugs, symptoms, and patient records, KGs provide a semantic backbone for decision-making, prediction, recommendation, and personalized care. Recent advances have demonstrated their utility across diverse medical applications--including clinical decision support systems, disease and treatment outcome prediction, health recommender systems, precision medicine, and medical question answering--where KGs often enhance interpretability, semantic coherence, and patient-specific reasoning. In parallel, a growing body of work focuses on medical KG generation itself, proposing frameworks that construct graphs from EHRs, clinical narratives, biomedical literature, and web resources using ontologies, semantic web technologies, deep-learning-based information extraction, and hybrid neuro-symbolic pipelines. Despite this progress, significant challenges remain, including limited and fragmented knowledge coverage, difficulties in aligning heterogeneous data sources, the fragility of current reasoning and representation-learning methods on dense multi-relational graphs, and unresolved issues related to privacy, bias, and accountability. This survey reviews and categorizes current research on KGs in medicine along both application-oriented and methodology-oriented dimensions, discusses their benefits and technical foundations, and outlines key limitations and open research directions. By analyzing trends, architectures, and evaluation practices, this work aims to guide future developments in KG-driven medical AI systems and support their safe and effective integration into healthcare environments.

Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have shown promising reasoning capabilities in general domains, yet their performance remains limited in specialized settings such as healthcare, especially in multilingual and low-resource scenarios. This gap is critical in regions like rural India, where patients often express complex medical queries in native Indic languages and rely on multimodal inputs such as medical images. Existing English-centric MLLMs struggle to support such use cases, limiting equitable access to AI-driven healthcare assistance. To address this challenge, we introduce ArogyaBodha, a large-scale multilingual multimodal medical question-answer dataset constructed from eight heterogeneous sources, covering 31 body systems, six imaging modalities, and 21 clinical domains across English and seven major Indian languages. We further propose ArogyaSutra, an actor-critic-based multi-agent framework that integrates tool grounding with dual-memory mechanisms for step-wise, reasoning-aware decision making, and uses stored actor-critic simulation trajectories for distillation. Experiments show that our dataset and framework improve multilingual medical reasoning accuracy across all Indic languages, with ablations validating the contribution of each component. The source code and dataset are available at: https://iitp-cse.github.io/ArogyaSutra/

Large language models (LLMs) now reach expert-level scores on medical licensing exams, encouraging the assumption that high scores imply safe medical judgment while patients increasingly use them for health advice. We show this assumption is fragile: when misleading context is injected into questions that LLMs originally answer correctly, they abandon the correct answer. We call the ability to maintain correct judgment under adversarial context epistemic resilience, and introduce MedMisBench to measure it. MedMisBench contains 10,932 medical question items and 48,889 misleading context-option pairs spanning medical reasoning, agentic capability, and patient-journey evaluation. Across 11 model configurations, mean accuracy falls from 71.1% on original questions to 38.0% under focused misleading context, with 51.5% attack success. The most damaging injections are formal, rule-like fabrications: authority-framed falsehoods reach 69.5% attack success and exception-poisoning claims reach 64.1%. A 14-member clinical panel from 7 countries identified serious potential harm in 38.2% of reviewed cases. MedMisBench exposes a structural blind spot in LLM evaluation in medical settings: existing benchmarks measure what models know, but not whether they preserve correct medical judgment under misleading context.

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.

Multi-agent LLM systems for medical question answering often treat consensus as a reliability signal: if multiple agents agree on an answer, it is presumed trustworthy. However, answer-level consensus does not entail reasoning-level alignment. We introduce CARA (Cross-Agent Reasoning Alignment), a family of automated metrics that measure whether agents who agree on an answer also agree on the reasoning. Applying CARA to a standard debate system on two medical QA benchmarks, MedQA-USMLE and MedThink-Bench, we identify the consistency illusion: a failure mode where debate reduces detectable contradictions between agents while simultaneously decreasing the semantic similarity of their reasoning chains; agents appear to agree more but reason less consistently. To improve this misalignment, we propose the Grounded Debate Protocol (GDP), a prompt-level intervention that requires agents to commit to named medical facts and take explicit stances on other agents' claims. GDP produces large, consistent alignment improvements, with Cohen's d ranging from +1.43 to +1.99, across two datasets and two backbone models, without adding LLM calls or modifying system architecture. Our results motivate cross-agent reasoning alignment as a quantity to audit alongside accuracy in safety-critical domains.

Pathology is the cornerstone of modern medicine, where accurate decision-making relies heavily on evidence-based practices. While artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to transform clinical workflows, the intersection of AI and evidence-based medicine remains under-explored, with primitive attempts restricted to text-only general medicine. In this work, we present PathPocket, a multimodal AI agentic co-pilot designed specifically for evidence grounded pathology. We construct the most comprehensive pathology evidence corpus to date, encompassing approximately 110,472 public and authorized documents structured across a rigorous hierarchy of evidence from clinical guideline to expert opinion. From this meticulously graded foundation, we build a large-scale multimodal pathology hypergraph containing over 4.55 million entities and 7.10 million relations. Serving as a robust knowledge engine, this hypergraph provides traceable evidence for a collaborative multi-agent reasoning framework integrating input understanding, evidence retrieval, filtering, and diagnosis generation. This enables PathPocket to seamlessly resolve a wide spectrum of clinical tasks, ranging from text-only queries to complex multimodal diagnostics involving region-of-interest (ROI) and gigapixel whole-slide images (WSIs). We rigorously evaluate the system on a multidimensional benchmark of over 200,000 real-world cases, where it significantly outperforms existing state-of-the-arts. Crucially, extensive user studies demonstrate that PathPocket substantially improves the diagnostic accuracy and confidence of pathologists. By directly grounding pathology interpretations in verifiable literature, PathPocket offers a practical and scalable solution for the future of evidence grounded computational pathology.

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.

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.

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.

Medical audio data is difficult to collect due to privacy regulations and high annotation costs arising from domain expertise. Thus, existing benchmarks tend to underrepresent complex medical audio scenarios. To address this challenge, we present MedMosaic, a medical audio question-answering dataset designed to benchmark language and audio reasoning models under realistic clinical constraints. MedMosaic features a diverse range of medical audio types, including condition-related physiological sounds, carefully constructed synthetic voices to mimic speech with artifacts as well as real short and long length clinical conversations to model varying context lengths. The dataset also features a total of 46,701 question-answer pairs, spanning categories such as multiple-choice, sequential multi-turn, and open-ended question-answers, enabling systematic evaluation of multi-hop reasoning and answer generation capabilities. Benchmarking 13 audio and multimodal reasoning models reveals that reasoning remains challenging for all evaluated systems, with substantial performance variation across question types. In particular, even state-of-the-art model like Gemini-2.5-pro can only achieve 68.1% accuracy approximately. These findings underscore persistent limitations in medical reasoning and highlight the need for more robust, domain-specific multimodal reasoning models. A sample of benchmark data is available here: https://shorturl.at/Lyp33