arXiv subjects

Irbaz B. Riaz

Publications and source records attributed to Irbaz B. Riaz.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

MatchMiner-AI: Open-source, Privacy-preserving Cancer Clinical Trial Matching using Artificial Intelligence

Background: Clinical trials are essential to advancing cancer treatments, but fewer than 10% of adults with cancer enroll in therapeutic trials. Open-source AI trial matching tools could democratize access to trial options. Methods: We created MatchMiner-AI, co-developed with practicing clinical oncologists and trained on synthetic electronic health record (EHR) data. It uses open-weight LLMs to summarize patient histories from unstructured EHR text and extract target populations from trial eligibility documents. Embedding and re-ranking models were distilled to retrieve and rank trial and patient suggestions. Multifaceted evaluation was performed, including retrospective quantification of distillation fidelity; applying a closed-source LLM as judge of patient summarization and matching; and evaluation of candidate matches by oncologists. Results: Across retrospective evaluations of distillation fidelity, the pipeline outperformed a baseline text-embedding model, improving mean average precision (MAP) at 20 from 0.44 (95% CI 0.44-0.45) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.95-0.96) for trial-enrolled patients and from 0.38 (95% CI 0.37-0.38) to 0.94 (95% CI 0.93-0.94) for patients who received standard of care therapies. In a 50-patient sample selected for comparison between MatchMiner-AI and a rules-based tumor genomic trial matching algorithm, MatchMiner-AI retrieved trials for all patients, as opposed to 19 patients (38%) who had tumor genomic data available. Among those 19 patients, 80% of 256 trial suggestions retrieved by MatchMiner-AI were deemed reasonable considerations by a frontier LLM, vs 53% of 113 suggestions retrieved by the rules-based approach. Conclusion: MatchMiner-AI is an open-source, open-weights, clinical trial matching AI pipeline for oncology. Synthetic training data, model weights, inference tools, and demonstration frontends are publicly available.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

RECAP: Transparent Inference-Time Emotion Alignment for Medical Dialogue Systems

Large language models in healthcare often produce emotionally flat or opaque responses, failing to provide the transparent reasoning required for clinical trust. We present RECAP (Reflect-Extract-Calibrate-Align-Produce), an inference-time framework grounded in cognitive appraisal theory that decomposes patient input into auditable, appraisal-theoretic stages without retraining. Across multiple benchmarks and models from 8B to 120B parameters, RECAP improves alignment with human judgments, with gains inversely proportional to model scale. Intermediate outputs further reveal that models systematically underweight relational factors such as social support. In blinded evaluations, oncology fellows rated RECAP responses significantly higher than baselines with 76-88% win rates, demonstrating that principled prompting can enhance medical AI's emotional intelligence while maintaining the transparency required for clinical deployment.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Impact of Large Language Model Assistance on Patients Reading Clinical Notes: A Mixed-Methods Study

Large language models (LLMs) have immense potential to make information more accessible, particularly in medicine, where complex medical jargon can hinder patient comprehension of clinical notes. We developed a patient-facing tool using LLMs to make clinical notes more readable by simplifying, extracting information from, and adding context to the notes. We piloted the tool with clinical notes donated by patients with a history of breast cancer and synthetic notes from a clinician. Participants (N=200, healthy, female-identifying patients) were randomly assigned three clinical notes in our tool with varying levels of augmentations and answered quantitative and qualitative questions evaluating their understanding of follow-up actions. Augmentations significantly increased their quantitative understanding scores. In-depth interviews were conducted with participants (N=7, patients with a history of breast cancer), revealing both positive sentiments about the augmentations and concerns about AI. We also performed a qualitative clinician-driven analysis of the model's error modes.

cs.HC↗