arXiv subjects

Peter G. Brodeur

Publications and source records attributed to Peter G. Brodeur.

3 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

Teaching large language models to reason like expert diagnosticians

Differential diagnosis is an iterative process that integrates patient information with broader medical knowledge. Clinical case series such as the NEJM Clinicopathologic Conferences (CPCs), published continuously since 1923, feature expert physicians who demonstrate diagnostic reasoning to peers, and have been used for decades to evaluate AI. However, prior AI evaluations have largely focused on final diagnostic accuracy rather than nuanced clinical reasoning. Here, we introduce Dr. CaBot, an agentic AI system that emulates an expert diagnostician by generating written and narrated slide-based presentations from an initial case description alone. CaBot recently generated the first AI diagnosis published in the 100+ year history of the NEJM CPCs. In blinded evaluations, physicians misclassified the source of the differential (CaBot vs. physician-written) in 46/62 (74%) of trials and rated them favorably across quality dimensions. When tasked with solving cases for 72 patients with undiagnosed disease from the NIH Undiagnosed Diseases Network, CaBot identified the working diagnosis in 50/72 (69%) of cases from referral notes alone. To promote transparency and research, we also developed CPC-Bench, a physician-validated benchmark based on 7,102 CPCs and 47,648 questions across 10 tasks. We show that CaBot outperforms frontier models on CPC-Bench, and release both CaBot and CPC-Bench publicly to foster progress in clinical AI.

cs.AI↗

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↗