arXiv subjects

Jenelle Jindal

Publications and source records attributed to Jenelle Jindal.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2025

First, do NOHARM: a medical safety benchmark and randomized study of physician and AI teaming on clinical consultations

Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized. We present NOHARM (Numerous Options Harm Assessment for Risk in Medicine), a 1,100-task benchmark of primary care-to-specialist consultation cases to measure the frequency and severity of potentially harmful errors from LLM-generated medical consultation recommendations. NOHARM covers 10 specialties, with 12,747 expert annotations for 4,249 clinical management options. Across 20 notable LLMs and 4 widely used retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) clinical AI tools, direct application of recommendations carried potential for severe harm in up to 24.6% of cases, with errors of omission accounting for more than 80% of severe errors. Harm potential was not uniform across systems, with clinical AI tools outperforming generalist LLMs, and multi-agent AI teaming further improving performance in generalist models. In a randomized study of 101 U.S.-licensed generalist physicians, AI assistance improved physician performance compared to conventional resources. However, AI-assisted physicians frequently omitted valuable AI-generated recommendations and still scored lower than many AI systems alone. Had those recommendations been incorporated, combined human-AI responses would have outperformed both the human and AI system as used, suggesting complementary strengths and unrealized potential in human-AI teaming. Collectively, these results show that despite strong performance on medical knowledge benchmarks, widely used AI tools can produce medical consultation advice with the potential for severe harm, and highlight the need for explicit measurement of clinical safety. The benchmark and leaderboard are publicly available to support ongoing evaluation and improvement of AI systems used for clinical care.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Clinician-Directed Large Language Model Software Generation for Therapeutic Interventions in Physical Rehabilitation

Digital health interventions increasingly deliver home exercise programs via sensor-equipped devices such as smartphones, enabling remote monitoring of adherence and performance. However, current software is usually authored before clinical encounters as libraries of modules for broad impairment categories. At the point of care, clinicians can only choose from these modules and adjust a few parameters (for example, duration or repetitions). As a result, individual limitations, goals, and environmental constraints are often not reflected, limiting personalization and benefit. We propose a paradigm in which large language models (LLMs) act as constrained translators that convert clinicians' exercise prescriptions into intervention software. Clinicians remain the decision makers: they design exercises during the encounter, tailored to each patient's impairments, goals, and environment, and the LLM generates matching software. We conducted a prospective single-arm feasibility study with 20 licensed physical and occupational therapists who created 40 individualized upper extremity programs for a standardized patient; 100% of prescriptions were translated into executable software, compared with 55% under a representative template-based digital health intervention (p < 0.01). LLM-generated software correctly delivered 99.7% of instructions and monitored performance with 88.4% accuracy (95% confidence interval, 0.843-0.915). Overall, 90% of therapists judged the system safe for patient interaction and 75% expressed willingness to adopt it in practice. To our knowledge, this is the first prospective evaluation of clinician-directed intervention software generation with an LLM in health care, demonstrating feasibility and motivating larger trials in real patient populations.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2025

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

FactEHR: A Dataset for Evaluating Factuality in Clinical Notes Using LLMs

Verifying and attributing factual claims is essential for the safe and effective use of large language models (LLMs) in healthcare. A core component of factuality evaluation is fact decomposition, the process of breaking down complex clinical statements into fine-grained atomic facts for verification. Recent work has proposed fact decomposition, which uses LLMs to rewrite source text into concise sentences conveying a single piece of information, to facilitate fine-grained fact verification. However, clinical documentation poses unique challenges for fact decomposition due to dense terminology and diverse note types and remains understudied. To address this gap and explore these challenges, we present FactEHR, an NLI dataset consisting of document fact decompositions for 2,168 clinical notes spanning four types from three hospital systems, resulting in 987,266 entailment pairs. We assess the generated facts on different axes, from entailment evaluation of LLMs to a qualitative analysis. Our evaluation, including review by the clinicians, reveals substantial variability in LLM performance for fact decomposition. For example, Gemini-1.5-Flash consistently generates relevant and accurate facts, while Llama-3 8B produces fewer and less consistent outputs. The results underscore the need for better LLM capabilities to support factual verification in clinical text.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

Zero-Shot Clinical Trial Patient Matching with LLMs

Matching patients to clinical trials is a key unsolved challenge in bringing new drugs to market. Today, identifying patients who meet a trial's eligibility criteria is highly manual, taking up to 1 hour per patient. Automated screening is challenging, however, as it requires understanding unstructured clinical text. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution. In this work, we explore their application to trial matching. First, we design an LLM-based system which, given a patient's medical history as unstructured clinical text, evaluates whether that patient meets a set of inclusion criteria (also specified as free text). Our zero-shot system achieves state-of-the-art scores on the n2c2 2018 cohort selection benchmark. Second, we improve the data and cost efficiency of our method by identifying a prompting strategy which matches patients an order of magnitude faster and more cheaply than the status quo, and develop a two-stage retrieval pipeline that reduces the number of tokens processed by up to a third while retaining high performance. Third, we evaluate the interpretability of our system by having clinicians evaluate the natural language justifications generated by the LLM for each eligibility decision, and show that it can output coherent explanations for 97% of its correct decisions and 75% of its incorrect ones. Our results establish the feasibility of using LLMs to accelerate clinical trial operations.

cs.CL↗