arXiv subjects

Liam G. McCoy

Publications and source records attributed to Liam G. McCoy.

8 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Scaling Clinical Judgment to Evaluate Medical AI

Blinded physician evaluation has been considered by many to be the gold standard for assessing clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs). This is difficult to scale; thus, prior studies typically rely on small physician panels, often from a single institution or specialty, which both limits the scientific questions investigated and makes it unclear whether findings would be reproduced with a different set of evaluators. To more rigorously and scalably study clinical reasoning in AI models, here we introduce PrecepTron, an LLM fine-tuned for physician-level evaluation of open-ended responses. PrecepTron was trained using low-rank adaptation (LoRA) of a 32-billion-parameter model on a small number of physician examples. We also release GRAND-ROUNDS, a new large-scale physician-annotated benchmark of 9,217 scores by 11 physicians across seven studies. We show that frontier LLMs in typical "LLM-as-a-judge" approaches often disagree with physicians and with each other, but fine-tuning PrecepTron on a small number of cases enables physician-level consistent scoring across tasks. We use PrecepTron to reproduce headline findings from five influential studies assessing LLMs for clinical care in JAMA, Science, and Nature Medicine without new human grading. Using PrecepTron, we then pose new questions about how LLMs reason in medicine that would have been infeasible with human grading alone, including measuring the diagnostic accuracy of frontier LLMs when clinical cases are provided piecemeal, even token by token. Together, PrecepTron and GRAND-ROUNDS provide a foundation for reproducible, large-scale study of how LLMs reason in medicine. All code, data, and labels are made freely available for researchers.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

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↗

arXiv2026

ER-Reason: A Benchmark Dataset for LLM Clinical Reasoning in the Emergency Room

Existing benchmarks for evaluating the clinical reasoning capabilities of large language models (LLMs) often lack a clear definition of "clinical reasoning" as a construct, fail to capture the full breadth of interdependent tasks within a clinical workflow, and rely on stylized vignettes rather than real-world clinical documentation. As a result, recent studies have found significant discrepancies between LLM performance on stylized benchmarks derived from medical licensing exams and their performance in real-world prospective studies. To address these limitations, we introduce ER-Reason, a benchmark designed to evaluate LLM reasoning as clinical evidence accumulates across decision-making tasks spanning the full workflow of emergency medicine. ER-Reason comprises 25,174 de-identified clinical notes from 3,437 patients, supporting evaluation across all stages of the emergency department workflow: triage intake, treatment selection, disposition planning, and final diagnosis. Crucially, evaluation in ER-Reason extends beyond diagnostic accuracy to include stepwise Script Concordance Test (SCT)-style questions grounded in real patient cases, which assess whether LLMs update their diagnostic beliefs in the correct direction and magnitude as clinical evidence accumulates, scored against 2,555 emergency physician annotations. We evaluate reasoning and non-reasoning LLMs on ER-Reason, and show that our tasks provide a more nuanced view of how LLM reasoning fails on real patient cases than existing benchmarks allow.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Asking the Right Questions: Benchmarking Large Language Models in the Development of Clinical Consultation Templates

This study evaluates the capacity of large language models (LLMs) to generate structured clinical consultation templates for electronic consultation. Using 145 expert-crafted templates developed and routinely used by Stanford's eConsult team, we assess frontier models -- including o3, GPT-4o, Kimi K2, Claude 4 Sonnet, Llama 3 70B, and Gemini 2.5 Pro -- for their ability to produce clinically coherent, concise, and prioritized clinical question schemas. Through a multi-agent pipeline combining prompt optimization, semantic autograding, and prioritization analysis, we show that while models like o3 achieve high comprehensiveness (up to 92.2\%), they consistently generate excessively long templates and fail to correctly prioritize the most clinically important questions under length constraints. Performance varies across specialties, with significant degradation in narrative-driven fields such as psychiatry and pain medicine. Our findings demonstrate that LLMs can enhance structured clinical information exchange between physicians, while highlighting the need for more robust evaluation methods that capture a model's ability to prioritize clinically salient information within the time constraints of real-world physician communication.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Red Teaming for Generative AI, Report on a Copyright-Focused Exercise Completed in an Academic Medical Center

Background: Generative artificial intelligence (AI) deployment in academic medical settings raises copyright compliance concerns. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute implemented GPT4DFCI, an internal generative AI tool utilizing OpenAI models, that is approved for enterprise use in research and operations. Given (1) the exceptionally broad adoption of the tool in our organization, (2) our research mission, and (3) the shared responsibility model required to benefit from Customer Copyright Commitment in Azure OpenAI Service products, we deemed rigorous copyright compliance testing necessary. Case Description: We conducted a structured red teaming exercise in Nov. 2024, with 42 participants from academic, industry, and government institutions. Four teams attempted to extract copyrighted content from GPT4DFCI across four domains: literary works, news articles, scientific publications, and access-restricted clinical notes. Teams successfully extracted verbatim book dedications and near-exact passages through various strategies. News article extraction failed despite jailbreak attempts. Scientific article reproduction yielded only high-level summaries. Clinical note testing revealed appropriate privacy safeguards. Discussion: The successful extraction of literary content indicates potential copyrighted material presence in training data, necessitating inference-time filtering. Differential success rates across content types suggest varying protective mechanisms. The event led to implementation of a copyright-specific meta-prompt in GPT4DFCI; this mitigation has been in production since Jan. 2025. Conclusion: Systematic red teaming revealed specific vulnerabilities in generative AI copyright compliance, leading to concrete mitigation strategies. Academic medical institutions deploying generative AI should implement continuous testing protocols to ensure legal and ethical compliance.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2025

Superhuman performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician

A seminal paper published by Ledley and Lusted in 1959 introduced complex clinical diagnostic reasoning cases as the gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems, a standard that has held ever since. Here, we report the results of a physician evaluation of a large language model (LLM) on challenging clinical cases against a baseline of hundreds of physicians. We conduct five experiments to measure clinical reasoning across differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning, all adjudicated by physician experts with validated psychometrics. We then report a real-world study comparing human expert and AI second opinions in randomly-selected patients in the emergency room of a major tertiary academic medical center in Boston, MA. We compared LLMs and board-certified physicians at three predefined diagnostic touchpoints: triage in the emergency room, initial evaluation by a physician, and admission to the hospital or intensive care unit. In all experiments--both vignettes and emergency room second opinions--the LLM displayed superhuman diagnostic and reasoning abilities, as well as continued improvement from prior generations of AI clinical decision support. Our study suggests that LLMs have achieved superhuman performance on general medical diagnostic and management reasoning, fulfilling the vision put forth by Ledley and Lusted, and motivating the urgent need for prospective trials.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

A Toolbox for Surfacing Health Equity Harms and Biases in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) hold promise to serve complex health information needs but also have the potential to introduce harm and exacerbate health disparities. Reliably evaluating equity-related model failures is a critical step toward developing systems that promote health equity. We present resources and methodologies for surfacing biases with potential to precipitate equity-related harms in long-form, LLM-generated answers to medical questions and conduct a large-scale empirical case study with the Med-PaLM 2 LLM. Our contributions include a multifactorial framework for human assessment of LLM-generated answers for biases, and EquityMedQA, a collection of seven datasets enriched for adversarial queries. Both our human assessment framework and dataset design process are grounded in an iterative participatory approach and review of Med-PaLM 2 answers. Through our empirical study, we find that our approach surfaces biases that may be missed via narrower evaluation approaches. Our experience underscores the importance of using diverse assessment methodologies and involving raters of varying backgrounds and expertise. While our approach is not sufficient to holistically assess whether the deployment of an AI system promotes equitable health outcomes, we hope that it can be leveraged and built upon towards a shared goal of LLMs that promote accessible and equitable healthcare.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2024

Seeds of Stereotypes: A Large-Scale Textual Analysis of Race and Gender Associations with Diseases in Online Sources

Background Advancements in Large Language Models (LLMs) hold transformative potential in healthcare, however, recent work has raised concern about the tendency of these models to produce outputs that display racial or gender biases. Although training data is a likely source of such biases, exploration of disease and demographic associations in text data at scale has been limited. Methods We conducted a large-scale textual analysis using a dataset comprising diverse web sources, including Arxiv, Wikipedia, and Common Crawl. The study analyzed the context in which various diseases are discussed alongside markers of race and gender. Given that LLMs are pre-trained on similar datasets, this approach allowed us to examine the potential biases that LLMs may learn and internalize. We compared these findings with actual demographic disease prevalence as well as GPT-4 outputs in order to evaluate the extent of bias representation. Results Our findings indicate that demographic terms are disproportionately associated with specific disease concepts in online texts. gender terms are prominently associated with disease concepts, while racial terms are much less frequently associated. We find widespread disparities in the associations of specific racial and gender terms with the 18 diseases analyzed. Most prominently, we see an overall significant overrepresentation of Black race mentions in comparison to population proportions. Conclusions Our results highlight the need for critical examination and transparent reporting of biases in LLM pretraining datasets. Our study suggests the need to develop mitigation strategies to counteract the influence of biased training data in LLMs, particularly in sensitive domains such as healthcare.

cs.CL↗