Searcharxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2505.20609

Comparisons between a Large Language Model-based Real-Time Compound Diagnostic Medical AI Interface and Physicians for Common Internal Medicine Cases using Simulated Patients

Hyungjun Park·Chang-Yun Woo·Seungjo Lim·Seunghwan Lim·Keunho Kwak·Ju Young Jeong·Chong Hyun Suh
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Objective To develop an LLM based realtime compound diagnostic medical AI interface and performed a clinical trial comparing this interface and physicians for common internal medicine cases based on the United States Medical License Exam (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Skill (CS) style exams. Methods A nonrandomized clinical trial was conducted on August 20, 2024. We recruited one general physician, two internal medicine residents (2nd and 3rd year), and five simulated patients. The clinical vignettes were adapted from the USMLE Step 2 CS style exams. We developed 10 representative internal medicine cases based on actual patients and included information available on initial diagnostic evaluation. Primary outcome was the accuracy of the first differential diagnosis. Repeatability was evaluated based on the proportion of agreement. Results The accuracy of the physicians' first differential diagnosis ranged from 50% to 70%, whereas the realtime compound diagnostic medical AI interface achieved an accuracy of 80%. The proportion of agreement for the first differential diagnosis was 0.7. The accuracy of the first and second differential diagnoses ranged from 70% to 90% for physicians, whereas the AI interface achieved an accuracy rate of 100%. The average time for the AI interface (557 sec) was 44.6% shorter than that of the physicians (1006 sec). The AI interface ($0.08) also reduced costs by 98.1% compared to the physicians' average ($4.2). Patient satisfaction scores ranged from 4.2 to 4.3 for care by physicians and were 3.9 for the AI interface Conclusion An LLM based realtime compound diagnostic medical AI interface demonstrated diagnostic accuracy and patient satisfaction comparable to those of a physician, while requiring less time and lower costs. These findings suggest that AI interfaces may have the potential to assist primary care consultations for common internal medicine cases.

Explore related subjects

cs.AIcs.CL

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Hyungjun Park, Chang-Yun Woo, Seungjo Lim, Seunghwan Lim, Keunho Kwak, Ju Young Jeong, Chong Hyun Suh. 2025-05-27. Comparisons between a Large Language Model-based Real-Time Compound Diagnostic Medical AI Interface and Physicians for Common Internal Medicine Cases using Simulated Patients. https://arxiv.org/abs/2505.20609

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Decoupling Readiness from Release for Tail-Aware Scheduling of Agentic LLM Workflows

Agentic LLM workflows consist of sequences of model turns interleaved with tool interactions, so their end-to-end completion time depends not only on inference speed but also on when ready turns are released. Most runtimes release each turn immediately upon readiness. Under contention, this eager release policy can accumulate released but unfinished work; once submitted, those turns can no longer be reordered by the workflow-level policy, increasing tail latency. We present a tail-risk-aware turn release scheduling method that jointly decides which ready turn to release next and how much released but unfinished work to maintain. The method uses a mean--Conditional Value-at-Risk (CVaR) objective to capture the evolving tail risk of unfinished workflows, incorporates online estimates of turn work when prioritizing ready turns, and adapts the released work budget to observed queue pressure. We evaluate the method using real agent execution traces from software engineering tasks across multiple LLMs and workflow arrival rates. The method performs comparably to eager release under light load and substantially reduces the P95 of workflow flow time under contention, achieving up to a \(3.50\times\) speedup.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Demystifying the Privacy-Utility Trade-off in LLM Interactions

The integration of Large Language Models into daily tasks relies on context-rich instructions, inevitably exposing sensitive user information. Current privacy-preserving methods typically employ context-agnostic static rules, causing severe utility degradation. However, the specific mechanisms governing how sanitization impacts downstream performance remain largely underexplored. To address this, we conduct a systematic analysis to deconstruct the privacy-utility trade-off, uncovering three underlying mechanisms: (1) Context-Dependent Utility, which first establishes when to sanitize by revealing that data value shifts from critical constraints to dispensable noise based on user intent; (2) Strategic Adaptation, which subsequently determines how to sanitize by dictating that the choice between removal and replacement depends on the task's reliance on factual integrity versus structural coherence; and (3) Combinatorial Interplay, which finally extends the protection scope by demonstrating that attributes form a semantic web of synergistic dependencies or antagonistic redundancies. Guided by these insights, we introduce an intent-driven local protection framework. By distilling a lightweight model Veilmind-4B to drive a dynamic extraction-sanitization-restoration pipeline, our approach reaches a low-leakage privacy point while preserving substantially higher response utility than existing privacy-oriented baselines, advancing the privacy-utility trade-off toward the Pareto frontier.

cs.AI↗
arXiv2026

Defining AI Agents: A Compendium of Criteria, Metrics, and Benchmarks

The term agent in artificial intelligence lacks a standard definition, complicating the evaluation, comparison, and reproducibility of AI agent research. We address this ambiguity through a survey organized around five dimensions of agenticness: environmental interaction, learning and adaptation, autonomy, goal-directed behavior, and temporal coherence. For each dimension, we examine how the underlying capability has been conceptualized across prior work and synthesize the metrics, benchmarks, and evaluation frameworks used to assess it. This review provides a structured account of the current landscape of agent evaluation, highlighting both established approaches and areas where evaluation remains limited or inconsistent. We additionally introduce the Agent Compendium, a public-facing digital resource that organizes and extends the evaluation methods identified through this review. Together, the survey and compendium provide a common structure for evaluating and comparing agent capabilities across AI systems, supporting more reproducible research, clearer communication, and more systematic study of artificial agents.

cs.AI↗