Role-Specialized Mixture-of-Agents with Open-Weight LLMs for Clinical Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical prediction tasks such as in-hospital mortality and readmission from electronic health records (EHRs). Privacy and compliance constraints motivate systems that can be deployed locally, which has increased interest in open-weight multi-agent designs. However, most medical multi-agent systems are evaluated as a single block, leaving unclear which agent role contributes to prediction and whether retrieval drives observed gains. We study a role-specialized Mixture-of-Agents (MoA) that combines medical knowledge retrieval with contrastive similar-patient reasoning. By varying the role design while holding the retrieval setup fixed, we localize the main effect to the final integrator. Pairing large open-weight analysts with a small open-weight integrator matches closed-model prompting on F1 for mortality prediction while flagging substantially more true high-risk patients. Mechanism analysis shows the role assignment directly yields a high-recall operating point without threshold tuning. The effect is task-dependent, with smaller gains for readmission because the available records correlate weakly with this longer-horizon outcome. These results position role design as a key factor in privacy-constrained, training-free clinical LLM prediction.

Friend or Foe? Language as an ideological switch in open-weight LLMs under Russian disinformation stress

As Russia's war against Ukraine extends into generative AI, large language models (LLMs) adapted for local post-Soviet languages are deployed in contested information environments. Policy and industry discourse assumes that culturally aligned adaptation encodes the political orientation of the target community: a Ukrainian-oriented model will resist Russian narratives, a Russian-oriented one will reinforce them. Does it? This article systematically disconfirms that assumption. We run a controlled audit of four openly available LLMs sharing a common base model but fine-tuned for different linguistic communities, querying them in Ukrainian, Russian and English across ten contested wartime narratives: Crimea, "denazification", the "one people" thesis, and atrocity denial at Bucha and Mariupol. The result is a Fine-Tuning Paradox: the Ukrainian-oriented model shows the weakest resistance to Russian disinformation in Russian, while the Russian-oriented one exhibits the strongest rejection. Corpus composition, language coverage and prompt format prove more decisive than nominal cultural provenance. We situate these findings within debates on hybrid warfare, digital sovereignty and post-imperial information orders, arguing that the principal threat to regional information sovereignty is not adversarial fine-tuning but the untested assumption that cultural alignment guarantees resilience.