Continuous multimodal sensing now allows human physiology to be observed throughout daily life rather than only during occasional clinical visits. However, most health artificial intelligence systems are designed to recognize current states, estimate risks or analyse individual biomarkers. They do not directly model how physiological states change in response to real-world events, behaviours, contexts and interventions. Here we propose the Physiological World Model (PWM), an event-conditioned framework for learning these changes at the level of the whole person. We introduce the HumanState Transition Token, a structured, quality-scored unit that connects the physiological state before an event with the event or action, relevant context and intervention information, the physiological trajectory after the event, observed outcomes and data quality. We describe four capability levels, from state representation to bounded intervention planning, together with four data acquisition and validation protocols. We also propose six benchmark tasks covering HumanState representation, forecasting across multiple timescales, individualized response prediction, simulation of alternative interventions, bounded planning and reliability under distribution shift. Together, this framework provides a practical path towards personalized health management, behavioural intervention design and clinician-supervised decision support, while clearly separating prediction from causal inference and making uncertainty, safety, governance and limits of use explicit.
Korosh Vatanparvar, Ashutosh Joshi, Maria Xenochristou +11cs.AI cs.CL
Health AI is evolving from answering questions to agentic systems that converse with patients, reason about health records, and act on their behalf. Primary care guards against diagnostic errors and unsafe care; agents assisting in this domain warrant evaluation against the same risks. Current benchmarks focus on medical knowledge, assessed through isolated question-answering or clinician-facing tasks. PatientAgentBench benchmarks patient-facing agentic healthcare; it evaluates a foundation model, wrapped in an agent with a sandbox of healthcare tools, conversing with a simulated patient. Each conversation is scored by an LLM-as-a-Jury across six dimensions via over a hundred conversation-agnostic, clinician-grounded criteria. To validate alignment, licensed clinicians annotated shared conversations, yielding 79-93% adjacent agreement between jury and expert raters, on par with or exceeding clinician inter-rater agreement. We benchmarked 10 models across four families on the same 1,200 scenarios and found clinical gaps. Triage quality is the most discriminating dimension: pass rates rise from 32% for the weakest models to 88% for the strongest, with agents often acting on administrative requests without clinical screening. Clinical safety and workflow accuracy follow the same pattern: the weakest models fail often, fabricating unexecuted actions, while frontier models fail on only 1-3% of cases, from unverified tool outputs and omitted crisis resources in an emergency. More capable models narrow these gaps but do not close them; the strongest scores only 4.25 of 5 overall. These failures surface only in sustained, tool-using conversations against realistic patient records, confirming that static benchmarks are insufficient as healthcare agentic systems gain autonomy. We release the framework as a reproducible, clinician-validated evaluation standard to help the field close this gap.