Peixing Wan | Searcharxiv

arXiv2026

Beyond Information Seeking: Severity-Aware Question Supervision for Proactive Medical Dialogue

Proactive medical dialogue requires an agent to decide what to ask from incomplete patient information. Existing information-seeking approaches commonly prioritize questions that most reduce diagnostic uncertainty, but this criterion overlooks an important property of medical diagnosis: different diagnostic errors can carry substantially different consequences. The most informative question may therefore differ from the one most valuable for the downstream decision. We propose Expected-Severity-Risk (ESR), a consequence-aware question-supervision objective that values each candidate by its expected reduction in severity-aware terminal risk. Because questions must be selected before their answers are observed, ESR marginalizes over possible answers using train-only population statistics. Its rankings are then distilled into a prefix-only language policy, requiring no teacher-side risk computation at deployment. Across three matched Qwen3-4B training seeds on DDxPlus, ESR reduces mean high-severity diagnostic miss from 0.0645 to 0.0455 (29.5% relative reduction) and improves mean diagnostic accuracy from 0.9123 to 0.9320 while requiring only 0.14 additional questions per dialogue. Fixed-budget analyses show that the distinction persists when question count is controlled, while a matched expected-0/1-risk student control further isolates the contribution of asymmetric severity weighting. These results support moving proactive medical dialogue beyond uncertainty reduction toward consequence-aware evidence acquisition.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2024

LEME: Open Large Language Models for Ophthalmology with Advanced Reasoning and Clinical Validation

The rising prevalence of eye diseases poses a growing public health burden. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising path to reduce documentation workload and support clinical decision-making. However, few have been tailored for ophthalmology, and most evaluations focus mainly on knowledge-based QA without clinically relevant benchmarks or real-world validation. Here, we present LEME, a suite of open-weight LLMs developed through a two-stage process: (1) instruction tuning on 200,000 samples from clinical guidelines, textbooks, and case reports to enhance reasoning and task-following, and (2) reinforcement learning with ~30,000 preference labels to enhance accuracy and informativeness. LEME was evaluated on five curated zero-shot benchmarks spanning tasks such as patient QA, consultation, and treatment planning. It outperformed all seven baselines (all p < 0.004), exceeding GPT-4o by 3.32% (absolute ROUGE-L gain). It was further evaluated on three downstream tasks using deidentified patient data, reviewed by clinicians. In patient QA, LEME received the highest ratings from attending clinicians in 3 out of 4 criteria, with scores of 4.67 for factuality, 4.77 for specificity, 4.79 for completeness, and 4.88 for safety (1-5 scale). Its completeness score surpassed that of expert-written answers (4.79 vs. 4.56; p = 0.015). In visual acuity extraction, LEME achieved the highest F1, outperforming LLaMA-3 by 14.1% and Eye-LLaMA by 59.0%. In a pilot evaluation on assessment and treatment planning for diabetic retinopathy, AMD, and glaucoma, LEME received scores of 4.36 for factuality, 4.55 for specificity, 4.42 for completeness, and 4.36 for safety, approaching attending-level performance. All models, data, and code will be released to support further development and clinical translation, laying the groundwork for improved efficiency and patient care

cs.CL↗