arXiv subjects

Ariel Yuhan Ong

Publications and source records attributed to Ariel Yuhan Ong.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Prediction bias in biological ageing markers

Biological ageing markers have attracted growing interest, with models estimating age from organ imaging or blood biomarkers. An estimated age above chronological age or the age-specific population expectation is assumed to reflect accelerated ageing and poorer health. Previous research has supported this assumption through positive associations between disease and age gaps or acceleration. However, in this study, we identified a widespread health-dependent prediction bias in ageing markers that affects their key interpretation and application. Specifically, we investigated five ageing markers derived from retinal images, brain MRI, chest radiographs, abdominal CT, and blood tests, and evaluated them using association analyses. We observed the well-recognised phenomenon of regression to the mean (RTM) in the four organ-image based markers, whereby estimated ages were shifted towards the mean age of the training cohort. More importantly, we revealed that the strength of RTM varied with health status, with stronger RTM in unhealthy than in healthy individuals. This differential RTM introduced a health-dependent prediction bias that persisted after calibration and systematically altered associations across age subgroups, suggesting that whole cohort associations may not reflect those observed within individual age subgroups. Additionally, we showed that the tested ageing markers, including PhenoAge derived from blood biomarkers, had limited ability to distinguish health status at the individual level. These findings call for careful interpretation of biological ageing markers and their use in clinical studies, and highlight the need for further development and validation before these ageing markers can reliably inform individual health assessments.

q-bio.QM↗

arXiv2026

Vibe coding for clinicians: democratising bespoke software development for digital health innovation

Clinicians often face workflow problems that are perceived as either too bespoke or low stakes to attract commercial attention. Historically, most do not have the technical knowledge to address these problems, but the recent emergence of "vibe coding" presents a transformative opportunity. Vibe coding refers to the co-development of software using natural language prompts to large language models. It offers a pathway to create simple tools that address these real-world pain points, or to prototype more complex ideas. In this review, written by a group of early adopter clinicians with a range of programming expertise, we introduce vibe coding for clinicians (especially those with no or minimal coding experience) as a way of democratising innovation from the front lines. We discuss foundational skills, outline some common challenges, provide a practical step-by-step playbook, and illustrate this approach with some case examples, taking care to consider caveats and guardrails for deployment. We propose that vibe coding is more than a technical shortcut for beginners and is not a replacement for professional software developers. Instead, it can bridge the gap between clinical insight and technical execution, equipping clinicians with the ability to rapidly prototype digital health solutions most reflective of clinical realities.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Deliberative multi-agent large language models improve clinical reasoning in ophthalmology

Large language models (LLMs) show potential for ophthalmic clinical reasoning, yet individual models risk introducing harm. We evaluated whether multi-agent LLM deliberative councils improve diagnostic performance and mitigate harm compared to individual LLMs. In a comparative cross-sectional study, we assessed 12 individual LLMs and three multi-agent councils on 100 ophthalmology clinical vignettes. Each council comprised four models assembled by type: proprietary flagship, proprietary fast, and open-source. Models independently answered a vignette, anonymously ranked one another's responses, and a designated chair synthesized all responses and peer reviews into a final answer. Councils consistently outperformed pooled individual models across all three tiers. Accuracy improved for proprietary flagship (95.0% vs 90.8%; risk difference [RD]: 4.25 [95% CI: 0.45, 8.05]), proprietary fast (96.0% vs 86.5%; RD: 9.50 [5.31, 13.59]), and open-source councils (91.0% vs 83.2%; RD: 7.75 [4.17, 11.33]). Harm rates declined for proprietary flagship (10.0% vs 22.5%; RD: -12.50 [-16.86, -8.14]), proprietary fast (16.0% vs 31.8%; RD: -15.75 [-21.49, -10.01]), and open-source councils (22.0% vs 38.5%; RD: -16.50 [-22.27, -10.73]). Coverage analysis revealed net positive gains for accuracy (ΔCoverage: 4.4-9.8 percentage points) and safety (ΔCoverage: 13.6-20.6), indicating councils recovered correct diagnoses and averted harm. Councils elevated correct diagnoses to higher rank positions; and produced more complete differentials and management plans (all P<.05). Harmful council responses showed reduced combined commission-and-omission errors and tended to be less severe. Structured deliberation via multi-agent LLM councils may enhance the reliability of LLM-assisted ophthalmic clinical reasoning.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Complementary Human-AI Clinical Reasoning in Ophthalmology

Vision impairment and blindness are a major global health challenge where gaps in the ophthalmology workforce limit access to specialist care. We evaluate AMIE, a medically fine-tuned conversational system based on Gemini with integrated web search and self-critique reasoning, using real-world clinical vignettes that reflect scenarios a general ophthalmologist would be expected to manage. We conducted two complementary evaluations: (1) a human-AI interactive diagnostic reasoning study in which ophthalmologists recorded initial differentials and plans, then reviewed AMIE's structured output and revised their answers; and (2) a masked preference and quality study comparing AMIE's narrative outputs with case author reference answers using a predefined rubric. AMIE showed standalone diagnostic performance comparable to clinicians at baseline. Crucially, after reviewing AMIE's responses, ophthalmologists tended to rank the correct diagnosis higher, reached greater agreement with one another, and enriched their investigation and management plans. Improvements were observed even when AMIE's top choice differed from or underperformed the clinician baseline, consistent with a complementary effect in which structured reasoning support helps clinicians re-rank rather than simply accept the model output. Preferences varied by clinical grade, suggesting opportunities to personalise responses by experience. Without ophthalmology-specific fine-tuning, AMIE matched clinician baseline and augmented clinical reasoning at the point of need, motivating multi-axis evaluation, domain adaptation, and prospective multimodal studies in real-world settings.

cs.HC↗