Huaxia Yang | Search arXiv

arXiv2026

An auditable conditional-strategy framework for open-ended decision-making in complex lung cancer

Complex lung cancer decisions can involve several defensible pathways whose eligibility, sequencing and safety depend on unresolved information. Effective support must make explicit how patient conditions govern pathway eligibility, deferral and redirection. MedGPT Clinical Explorer (MCE) organizes alternatives, decision-changing unknowns, safety constraints and fallback into a conditional strategy for clinician review. To evaluate this representation in physician-authored strategies, multidisciplinary experts established case-specific references for 40 cases within a purposive 100-case corpus, and 250 physicians from 98 institutions produced 2,250 strategies under unaided, retrieval-reference and MCE-assisted conditions. MCE-assisted strategies expressed more applicable clinical requirements, measured by the Admissible Pathway Attainment Score (APAS; 0-100), than unaided strategies (adjusted difference, 12.87; 95% CI, 11.18-14.55) and retrieval-reference strategies (5.22; 3.52-6.93). With the same knowledge base available in the retrieval-reference and MCE-assisted conditions, the additional content centered on candidate pathways, decision-critical information and safety constraints. Physicians' whole-strategy acceptability judgments correlated with APAS (Spearman's rho = 0.671), while a complementary relationship audit assessed whether candidates, conditions and subsequent actions were coherently connected. Together, these findings identify two complementary dimensions of open-ended decision support: coverage of clinically relevant content and coherent links among pathways, conditions and subsequent actions. MCE provides a shared decision object that makes consequential omissions and pathway contingencies visible before action; prospective studies should evaluate its effects on clinical workflow and patient outcomes.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains

Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in clinical decision support but face major challenges in safety evaluation and effectiveness validation. We developed the Clinical Safety-Effectiveness Dual-Track Benchmark (CSEDB), a multidimensional framework built on clinical expert consensus, encompassing 30 criteria covering critical areas like critical illness recognition, guideline adherence, and medication safety, with weighted consequence measures. Thirty-two specialist physicians developed and reviewed 2,069 open-ended Q&A items aligned with these criteria, spanning 26 clinical departments to simulate real-world scenarios. Benchmark testing of six LLMs revealed moderate overall performance (average total score 57.2%, safety 54.7%, effectiveness 62.3%), with a significant 13.3% performance drop in high-risk scenarios (p < 0.0001). Domain-specific medical LLMs showed consistent performance advantages over general-purpose models, with relatively higher top scores in safety (0.912) and effectiveness (0.861). The findings of this study not only provide a standardized metric for evaluating the clinical application of medical LLMs, facilitating comparative analyses, risk exposure identification, and improvement directions across different scenarios, but also hold the potential to promote safer and more effective deployment of large language models in healthcare environments.

cs.CL↗