The Value of System 1 Models in Medicine

Xiufeng Yang; Konstantinos Vrettos; Zeineb Ben Chaaben; Fabian Drexel; Jannik Lübberstedt; Johannes Moll; Anirudh Narayanan; Frederike Stumpf; Cosmin I. Bercea; Jiawen Wang; Evangelia E. Vassalou; Krischan Braitsch; Sebastian Ziegelmayer; Markus Graf; Marcus R. Makowski; Lisa Adams; Nassir Navab; Michail E. Klontzas; Keno Bressem

arXiv · 2610.31315

The Value of System 1 Models in Medicine

Xiufeng Yang·Konstantinos Vrettos·Zeineb Ben Chaaben·Fabian Drexel·Jannik Lübberstedt·Johannes Moll·Anirudh Narayanan·Frederike Stumpf·Cosmin I. Bercea·Jiawen Wang·Evangelia E. Vassalou·Krischan Braitsch·Sebastian Ziegelmayer·Markus Graf·Marcus R. Makowski·Lisa Adams·Nassir Navab·Michail E. Klontzas·Keno Bressem

View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Many clinical decisions are a choice among a few fixed options, taken quickly and in large numbers. Such decisions also need an uncertainty estimate to know when to defer to a clinician. Generative language models answer slowly in free text and state their confidence poorly. In contrast, System 1 models answer zero-shot with a probability for each answer. However, their performance across clinical tasks is unknown. Four System 1 models, two proprietary and two with open weights, were evaluated zero-shot on 86 public tasks from 14 clinical domains in 20 languages, spanning examination questions and medical imaging. Tasks were assigned to six capability tiers before analysis. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve (AUROC). Secondary outcomes included calibration, language effects and comparisons with published results and generative models. Across 179,111 cases, the mean AUROC of the best model per task was 0.94 for medical knowledge, 0.93 for text understanding, 0.83 for clinical judgement from text, 0.89 for image perception, 0.84 for 2D image findings and 0.69 for volumetric findings. Imaging tasks scored 0.09 (95% CI, 0.06 to 0.11) lower than text tasks (P < 0.001). The best model matched or exceeded the best published result on 13 of 26 text tasks and on 8 of 35 imaging tasks. Triage nurses outperformed the best model (accuracy, 0.85 vs. 0.56). One decision took 0.34 to 0.44 seconds and 24 to 81 joules on open-weight models run locally. Accuracy on identical questions fell by up to 39 percentage points from English to Yoruba. Generative models of the same family were 11 to 76 times slower, with 3 to 5 percentage points higher balanced accuracy. System 1 models decide quickly, cheaply and with usable confidence when the answer is stated in a text or recalled from medical knowledge, but not when it must be judged or read from an image.

Explore related subjects

cs.LG

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Xiufeng Yang, Konstantinos Vrettos, Zeineb Ben Chaaben, Fabian Drexel, Jannik Lübberstedt, Johannes Moll, Anirudh Narayanan, Frederike Stumpf, Cosmin I. Bercea, Jiawen Wang, Evangelia E. Vassalou, Krischan Braitsch, Sebastian Ziegelmayer, Markus Graf, Marcus R. Makowski, Lisa Adams, Nassir Navab, Michail E. Klontzas, Keno Bressem. 2026-10-22. The Value of System 1 Models in Medicine. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.31315

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

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Are EEG Sequences Time Series? EEG Classification with Time Series Models and Joint Subject Training

As with most other data domains, EEG data analysis relies on rich domain-specific preprocessing. Beyond such preprocessing, machine learners would hope to deal with such data as with any other time series data. For EEG classification many models have been developed with layer types and architectures we typically do not see in time series classification. Furthermore, typically separate models for each individual subject are learned, not one model for all of them. In this paper, we systematically study the differences between EEG classification models and generic time series classification models. We describe three different model setups to deal with EEG data from different subjects, subject-specific models (most EEG literature), subject-agnostic models and subject-conditional models. In experiments on three datasets, we demonstrate that off-the-shelf time series classification models trained per subject perform close to EEG classification models, but that do not quite reach the performance of domain-specific modeling. Additionally, we combine time-series models with subject embeddings to train one joint subject-conditional classifier on all subjects. The resulting models are competitive with dedicated EEG models in 2 out of 3 datasets, even outperforming all EEG methods on one of them.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

The Fenchel-Young Generalization of Bayesian Principles

Conjugate Bayes plays a key role in machine learning, ensuring computationally simple posterior updates. We generalize the variational principle behind this computation by using the Fenchel-Young (FY) inequality, which lets us define a generalized evidence lower bound beyond the KL geometry, and at equality, characterizes new generalized posteriors. A generalized notion of conjugacy follows, defined as closure of prior-potential families that are affine under translation by the loss. We show that such families not only preserve additive canonical updating, but also posterior inference with parameter-dependent supports and tuneably heavy tails. This combination is not feasible with standard conjugate Bayes. We derive a new FY generalization of expectation maximization (EM), which recovers classical and Hard EM, and amortized versions. We show examples, including generalized Bayesian linear regression with closed-form bounded support and heavy-tailed posteriors, and a Gaussian mixture with sparse cluster assignments.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2026

Fragility-aware Classification for Risk Characterization and Robust Learning

Classification models play a central role in data-driven decision-making applications such as medical diagnosis, recommendation systems, and risk assessment. Traditional performance metrics, such as accuracy and AUC, quantify classification errors and pairwise ranking performance but do not account for the magnitude of errors, i.e., the risk of confident misjudgments. This limitation is particularly consequential in safety-critical and cost-sensitive settings, where overconfident errors can lead to severe outcomes. To address this issue, we propose the Fragility Index (FI), a novel performance metric that evaluates classifiers from a risk-averse perspective by capturing the tail risk of confident misjudgments. We formulate FI within a robust satisficing (RS) framework to quantify classifier sensitivity under distributional uncertainty. Building on this, we develop a tractable surrogate-based training framework and establish provable bounds connecting training fragility to ranking-error FI. We further derive tractable reformulations for a broad class of loss functions, including cross-entropy, hinge-type, and Lipschitz losses, and identify specific conditions under which these reformulations are exact. We also introduce an FI-induced regularizer for deep neural networks. Empirical results on real-world medical diagnosis tasks demonstrate that FI complements existing metrics by revealing error tail risk not reflected in accuracy or AUC. FI-based models achieve competitive predictive performance while generally attaining lower FI. In the simulated human--AI diagnostic workflow, they also achieve lower average operational costs than empirical risk minimization.

cs.LG↗