Augmenting Interviewer Judgments of Patient Experience with Automatic Language Analysis

Understanding how psychiatric patients subjectively experienced a clinical conversation is important for feedback and alliance-related process monitoring. While interviewers form post-session judgments about patient experience, these judgments do not always match patients' self-reports. Automatic approaches for predicting perceived interaction quality from conversation have been proposed, but it remains unclear whether such approaches can complement human judgment rather than simply replicate it. To address this gap, we evaluate a clinician-support framework in which post-session interviewer ratings are combined with automatic language-based predictions to estimate patient-reported interaction quality in free clinical interviews. We assess this integration across multiple standard model types, including Ridge, SVR, MLP, GRU, and BiLSTM, all trained on sentence embeddings extracted from dyadic transcripts of 107 free conversations between psychiatric patients and interviewers. Our results show that combining interviewer judgments with model predictions through simple averaging yields the strongest overall performance. The interviewer-only baseline reached a Pearson correlation of 0.365. Among fully automatic models, Ridge achieved the strongest Pearson correlation (r = 0.286), while BiLSTM achieved r = 0.270. The strongest result was obtained by BiLSTM interviewer integration (r = 0.403). Our findings suggest that automatic language analysis and interviewer judgment capture complementary aspects of patient experience and that their combination provides a more accurate approximation of the patient's own report than either source alone.

CoPlan: A Trustworthy Co-Intelligence Interface for Care Planning through Role-Based Contestable Argument Graphs

AI-supported care planning can help clinicians, patients, caregivers, and care teams coordinate complex decisions across clinical, functional, psychosocial, and environmental needs. However, many AI systems present recommendations as fixed outputs, limiting stakeholders' ability to inspect, challenge, and revise plans when they conflict with clinical judgment, patient values, or real-world feasibility. We present CoPlan - a Co-Intelligent and Contestable Interface for Human-AI Care Planning. CoPlan uses a multi-agent workflow in which specialized AI agents generate candidate interventions and supporting or challenging arguments, while human care planners can accept, reject, modify, or add arguments before final plan generation. Through this design, CoPlan combines co-intelligence, in which humans and AI agents contribute complementary expertise, with contestability, where recommendations remain open to inspection, revision, and justification. We demonstrate CoPlan in an aging-in-place care planning scenario. The system supports adaptive care team recruitment, role-based argument review, final care plan generation, and practical follow-up through scheduling agents. This work contributes a contestable care planning interface and a design framing for trustworthy human-AI care planning that preserves human agency and clinical accountability.

RareLens: Towards End-to-End Rare Disease Care via Aligning Divergent Large Language Model Reasoning

Rare diseases represent one of the most challenging settings for clinical decision-making, where heterogeneous presentations, sparse evidence and limited expertise create persistent uncertainty throughout the care pathway. Although artificial intelligence could help, existing systems largely address isolated tasks, particularly diagnosis, and usually rely on downstream investigations rather than information available at initial presentation. Here we show that clinical AI performance under uncertainty can be improved not by scaling a single model, but by exploiting the diversity of multiple imperfect reasoning systems. Across heterogeneous large language models, we identify divergent reasoning trajectories with complementary error patterns and develop RareLens, which learns to reconcile these perspectives into actionable decisions across four stages of rare disease care: risk screening, diagnosis, treatment planning and prognosis prediction. Built on RarelensBench, a real-world dataset of 157,525 cases spanning all 33 Orphanet categories and more than 7,000 conditions, RareLens outperformed every frontier model tested, including GPT-5, DeepSeek-R1, Claude-3.7-Sonnet and Gemini-2.5-Pro, across all stages. It achieved an area under the curve of 0.917 for screening and top-1 accuracies of 65.5% and 89.8% for diagnosis and treatment. In an external evaluation involving 1,287 cases and 23 physicians, autonomous RareLens and physicians assisted by RareLens both outperformed unaided physicians, while demonstrating that effective human-AI collaboration requires more than simply providing model outputs. These findings establish divergent model reasoning as an exploitable source of information and suggest a general strategy for building AI systems that operate reliably under high clinical uncertainty.

LiteOdyssey: A Lightweight Reasoning AI Agent for Interpretable Rare-Disease Diagnosis

Most medical AI systems improve by scaling additional machinery: more fine-tuning data, more agents, and/or larger retrieval databases. In rare-disease diagnosis, however, such scaling can produce systems that are difficult to deploy, audit, and maintain. We asked whether state-of-the-art diagnostic performance could instead be achieved by extending the reasoning chain of a single AI agent: guiding it with a diagnostic policy, developed through human-AI collaboration and augmenting with freely available biomedical tools. We introduce LiteOdyssey, a lightweight rare-disease diagnostic framework that guides reasoning language model through a clinical genetics workflow. This framework was developed through Policy Iteration with Human Feedback (PIHF) and uses dynamic access to public biomedical tools. On two challenging benchmarks that provide only patient clinical features, LiteOdyssey achieved state-of-the-art performance, with an overall disease Recall@1 of 59.3% over the combined 1,243 cases of LIRICAL (n = 370) and the PhenoPacket Store (n = 873). Both benchmarks have a high proportion of ultra-rare disease (a prevalence below 1 in 1,000,000, with ultra-rare shares of approximately 45% and 52.8%, respectively). On the more difficult PhenoPacket subset, where causal diseases were not mapped to Orphanet in our rarity-mapping pipeline, LiteOdyssey achieved 60.7% Recall@1, compared with 10.7% for the same baseline model (GPT-5.4) without tools. This performance was achieved without fine-tuning, multi-agent ensembles, or a large case-retrieval database. Gains were also observed in the following: on cases never seen during development, on a private cohort of real-world rare disease patients, and on a smaller open-weights model. LiteOdyssey suggests a path toward rare-disease AI systems that are accurate, easier to deploy, and more transparent for physician review.