Charles Corbière, Léo Machado, Aubin Charley +3cs.CV
As AI systems are increasingly used to draft radiology reports, reliably evaluating their clinical quality remains a critical challenge. Large language model (LLM)-based metrics are now the best-correlated with radiologist judgment, yet they output a single opaque score that neither a clinician nor a model builder can easily interpret or audit. We introduce RadMatch, a multi-stage, LLM-based metric that decomposes report comparison into a structured finding-level matching with significance-aware scoring and error characterization across seven clinical attribute dimensions (status, location, severity, morphology, certainty, longitudinal comparison, and measurement). The main score is the actionable-error count, both interpretable and auditable. Candidate findings are graded correct, partial, or incorrect, and unmatched findings are counted as missed or hallucinated. Triage and actionable safety recall/precision and per-subset views add complementary, deployment-oriented lenses. Across two expert benchmarks, RadMatch is the most clinically aligned metric, matching inter-radiologist agreement on ReXVal and more than doubling the best prior metric on the harder RadEvalExpert. Relying only on few-shot prompting, it is designed to extend to other modalities and anatomies. We will release RadMatch as open-source code with an interactive dashboard for inspecting results.
Artificial intelligence is transforming personalized healthcare, yet fragmented clinical, self reported, and wearable evidence remains difficult to interpret and trace. We present CareGraph, an auditable hybrid AI framework that converts heterogeneous records into prioritized trends, missing context indicators, bounded next steps, discussion questions, and provenance linked explanations. CareGraph organizes evidence without diagnosing, predicting outcomes, selecting treatment, or making autonomous clinical decisions. Its pipeline covers deterministic analysis, context detection, graph construction, constrained language model synthesis, evidence validation, safety controls, and release gating. Tests used synthetic cohorts of 400 patients each for development, validation, and holdout. On holdout data, a frozen ordinary least squares trend rule with a sufficiency gate achieved 0.827 accuracy, 0.837 macro F1 with a 95 percent confidence interval of 0.819 to 0.854, and 0.974 insufficient data F1. Missing context detection achieved 0.815 strict micro F1 versus 0.318 for the legacy detector. On an authored holdout benchmark, safety ruleset version 1.2 achieved 1.000 precision, 0.950 recall, and 0.974 F1. An audit requiring graph retrieval across 80 patients yielded 79 syntheses and 78 presentations without fallback; one output was blocked and one failed closed because of an invalid evidence key. Against monolithic GPT 5.6 on 56 matched patients, CareGraph was faster at 40.15 versus 49.62 seconds, shorter at 661 versus 1,163 words, and showed better exploratory lexical alignment with longitudinal targets; the baseline used fewer tokens and cited more raw evidence. Graph auditing verified provenance and deterministic retrieval; incremental graph effects on generation require paired evaluation. CareGraph offers a safety bounded foundation for intelligent personalized health systems.
Constructing causal directed acyclic graphs (DAGs) is a core step in biomedical causal analysis, yet it remains a largely manual process. Analysts must connect study variables to prior literature, evaluate uncertain causal claims, and preserve sufficient provenance for expert review. We present EviDAG, a browser-based system for authoring causal DAGs as auditable, evidence-linked artifacts from biomedical literature. Given free-text descriptions of study concepts, EviDAG creates a reproducible literature snapshot, uses an LLM-based reasoning module to generate structured pairwise causal judgments, links literature-supported judgments to verbatim evidence excerpts, and assembles the judgments into a constraint-checked graph. Each proposed edge includes confidence estimates, provenance, and a reviewable rationale. The interface supports study specification, progress monitoring, evidence review, graph comparison, adjustment-set computation, and export. In evaluations against both compact benchmark DAGs and reference DAGs derived from published literature, EviDAG achieves high edge recall on the literature-based cohort while retaining verifiable evidence trails absent from LLM-only baselines. EviDAG thus reduces the burden of causal DAG curation while making the resulting assumptions auditable, supporting the design, analysis, and interpretation of biomedical studies.
Open physiological corpora are heterogeneous: they use different sensors, labels, sampling rates, recording settings, and clinical endpoints. They can support detector design, but they do not directly specify which detector rules should be built for a new contactless monitoring platform. We report a controlled four-analyst large-language-model (LLM) workflow for converting 68 public physiological corpora, screened for commercial-use compatibility, into an auditable library of candidate rule shapes for prospective validation. Four independent commercial LLM families read the corpus documentation under a controlled prompt and produced 695 candidate rule markers (top-markers). Deduplication retained 649 rule records; a threshold-bounds audit then flagged 51 sanity violations for clamping or curator review. Cross-corpus consolidation produced 436 unique rule shapes. Gate-tagging against two hard invariants, native target-hardware channel availability and no multi-night per-patient personalization, identified 94 build-now detector components across four detector-family buckets. The pipeline does not produce a validated clinical detector. It produces an auditable engineering cascade in which analyst disagreement, threshold checks, curator review, and automated continuous-integration (CI) checks route literature-derived rules toward prospective hardware validation.
Moustafa Yehia Hassan, Sharon Wong, Woh Kai Xuancs.AI cs.CL cs.LG
Biomedical NLP pipelines routinely presuppose clean input text, yet large-scale corpora assembled through automated PDF parsing harbour pervasive OCR-like artifacts, token splits and merges, hyphenation remnants, and character-level corruption, that systematically erode lexical evidence and degrade downstream classifiers. We introduce a conservative, fully auditable spell-correction reliability layer conceived as a safety-oriented preprocessing module rather than a maximal-accuracy corrector: under conditions of uncertainty, the system abstains from editing, in accordance with a medical do-no-harm philosophy. The deterministic architecture couples bounded edit-distance candidate generation with corpus-derived n-gram scoring and a suite of biomedical safety gates that protect domain-critical terminology. We evaluate the layer both intrinsically, on a manually curated benchmark of 2,104 token-level cases, and extrinsically, on a tri-class CORD-19 topic classifier (Prevention, Treatment, Epidemiology) spanning 10,000 examples under a principled four-run protocol (Clean, Noisy, Restored, Safety). Intrinsically, the layer attains 94.61% error-fix recall on synthetic errors with zero harmful edits on negative controls. Downstream, it recovers approximately 80.45% of the noise-induced macro-F1 degradation, elevating macro-F1 from 0.7654 (Noisy) to 0.7717 (Restored) while preserving near-clean performance (Safety: 0.7721). A supplementary case study on 103 real-world OCR-extracted abstracts classified with BioBERT confirms that transformer encoders appeared relatively robust to mild noise, motivating a future grey-box architecture that integrates bounded neural signals and UMLS lexicons without compromising auditability. The system is fully deterministic, artifact-driven, and designed with deployment and auditability in mind.