arXiv subjects

Krittaphas Chaisutyakorn

Publications and source records attributed to Krittaphas Chaisutyakorn.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

PAINT: A Framework for Multilingual Pain Representation from Medical Licensing Exams to Real-World Clinical Texts

Pain is one of the most common and clinically important symptoms, reflecting disease onset, progression, and treatment response. However, pain is difficult to accurately capture and interpret from medical text, as its expression varies across languages, documentation types, and patient demographics, and is often embedded in terminology, negation, temporality, and contextual descriptions. Existing pain-related studies remain largely monolingual or limited to narrow clinical settings. In this study, we introduce PAINT, a multilingual framework for studying pain representation across medical exams and real-world clinical texts. PAINT includes nine pain-focused dataset partitions spanning English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Japanese, with clinician annotations in all four languages. We curated a structured schema covering pain relevance, pain presence, anatomical location, pain descriptors, and demographic information. To capture multilingual pain representations, we leverage large language models (LLMs) and adopt an ensemble strategy to improve performance. Ten clinicians across four languages validate the labels: the ensemble reaches macro-F1 of 0.91-1.00 on pain relevance and pain presence and 92-100% accuracy on demographics, with inter-annotator $κ$ of 0.82-1.00. We release the WorldMedQA-Pain ensemble labels, the extraction pipeline, validation scripts, and clinician annotation sheets for publicly licensed corpora, providing a foundation for pain-centered clinical NLP and for studying pain documentation across languages and healthcare contexts.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Loud or Silent? A Reusable Framework for Per-Modality Failure Analysis in Multimodal Clinical AI

Multimodal clinical models are usually judged on accuracy with every modality present, but deployment removes modalities; an echocardiogram is often unavailable where an ECG is routine. Two questions then matter beyond the size of the accuracy loss: which modality was responsible, and whether the model fails loudly or silently once that modality is dropped. The distinction is per-example and modality-level, and is separate from post-hoc feature attribution (e.g. SHAP). Models are replaced often; the evaluation that answers these questions is reused. We present a model-agnostic modality-failure framework: given N modality embeddings, any mask-aware probe, and labels, it returns a per-example failure taxonomy, a per-modality complementarity matrix that attributes error to modalities, and a loud-vs-silent dropout profile separating monitorable failures from those that pass unflagged far from the decision boundary, using only deployment-observable signals. We release it as a small, unit-tested harness and validate it against planted ground truth. Across seeds it recovers that planted modality dominance and complementary subset, reports per-modality loud-vs-silent rates, and scales to a three-modality complementarity matrix; because the planted structure is known by construction, this validates recovery of per-example attribution rather than clinical performance. We then instantiate the framework on frozen EchoJEPA and HuBERT-ECG embeddings for LVEF and the EF <= 40% HFrEF gate over a paired MIMIC-IV cohort, where on the held-out test split (n = 245) dropping echo nearly doubles error. The narrow echo-to-ECG overlap that bounds cohort size is itself a deployment finding for cardiac foundation models. All of our work can be found at https://github.com/criticaldata/PRIMED-AI.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

On the Robustness of Answer Formats in Medical Reasoning Models

Medical reasoning models (MRMs) achieve superior performance on medical benchmarks compared to medical LLMs; however, high accuracy alone is insufficient for practical deployment. One of such requirements for real-world application is robustness to varying output constraints. Specifically, posing the same medical question while requesting different answer formats should not affect the underlying correctness of the response. We investigate this phenomenon in this paper, focusing on MRMs. To quantify this behavior, we propose the metric answer-format robustness: the ability to reliably generate correct outputs across varying specified formats. We examine three representative formats: multiple-choice, open-ended question-answering, and ranked lists. Across 15 proprietary and open-weight models, we observe substantial variation in format robustness (35-100%). Furthermore, we conduct controlled fine-tuning experiments on a shared backbone with matched training data to isolate the effects of the fine-tuning paradigm. We find that supervised fine-tuning yields more stable behavior across formats, whereas reinforcement fine-tuning often exhibits higher cross-format brittleness, with the degree of instability strongly dependent on reward design. Overall, answer-format robustness in MRMs is trainable yet brittle and requires careful evaluation for practical medical use.

cs.CL↗