arXiv subjects

Emily Alsentzer

Publications and source records attributed to Emily Alsentzer.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Protecting patient privacy in clinical foundation models: Technical and legal perspectives

Clinical foundation models trained on large-scale patient data are increasingly used for decision support, screening, and public health. As deployment expands, privacy risk increasingly arises from model-mediated leakage, yet its prevalence and severity remain poorly quantified. Models can disclose sensitive training artifacts, enabling patient re-identification in ways not captured by data-handling controls alone. Existing frameworks, including HIPAA and GDPR, offer limited guidance for such indirect threats. We propose a practical framework for assessing privacy risk in clinical foundation models and illustrate realistic leakage scenarios across deployment settings, map them to legal regimes, and outline complementary technical and legal mitigations. Our analysis provides a context-aware risk assessment grounded in realistic usage to preserve the value of medical foundation models while rigorously safeguarding patient privacy.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Clinically Grounded Privacy Evaluation of Medical LMs

Medical language models (LMs) can memorize and reproduce protected health information, but privacy evaluations often focus on recovery of training text rather than disclosure under realistic threat models. We introduce a clinically grounded framework that evaluates leakage along a graded axis of adversarial access, ranging from publicly inferable demographics to leaked note fragments. At each tier, we measure verbatim memorization of patient-specific text and semantic leakage of sensitive diagnoses. Applying the framework to an LM continually pretrained on 378k clinical notes, we find that routine encounter metadata (i.e., name, date of birth, visit date, provider name, and practice location) elicits high rates of verbatim memorization across a patient's timeline and sensitive-diagnosis recovery (AUROC 0.91 for abortion, 0.82 for HIV). At the same time, exact-match memorization can overstate disclosure: 36% of memorized tokens reflect templated documentation. Our work highlights the risks of training on longitudinal clinical data and provides a practical, reusable framework for contextual privacy evaluation of medical LMs.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

Clinical Note Bloat Reduction for Efficient LLM Use

Health systems are rapidly deploying large language models (LLMs) that use clinical notes for clinical decision support applications. However, modern documentation practices rely heavily on templates, copy--paste shortcuts, and auto-populated fields, producing extensive duplicated text (``note bloat'') that dilutes clinically meaningful signal and substantially increases the computational cost of LLM use. We introduce TRACE, a scalable preprocessing pipeline that removes note bloat by leveraging EHR attribution metadata to identify templated and copied content and applying frequency-based deduplication when metadata are unavailable. We evaluated TRACE across four real--world clinical cohorts spanning liver transplantation, obstetrics, and inpatient care (5.3 million notes) using blinded physician review and downstream modeling tasks. TRACE removed 47.3% of chart text while preserving performance for information extraction and clinical outcome prediction. At a large academic medical center, this reduction corresponds to an estimated $9.5 million annual decrease in LLM inference costs assuming one query per encounter. These findings show how underutilized EHR metadata can enable more scalable and cost-efficient deployment of LLM-based clinical systems.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Clinician input steers AI toward accurate and harmful recommendations

Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical workflows, yet evaluations rarely assess how clinician reasoning shapes model behavior during clinical interactions. Using 61 curated NEJM Case Records, we tested how expert or misleading clinician reasoning influenced AI-generated differential diagnoses and next step recommendations across 21 reasoning variants from 8 proprietary and open-source models. After clinician exposure, LLM-clinician concordance increased: simulations with >=3 overlapping differential diagnoses rose from 65.8% to 93.5%, and those with >=3 overlapping next step recommendations from 20.3% to 53.8%. Expert context significantly improved correct final-diagnosis inclusion in all 21 models (mean +20.4 pp), reflecting both improved reasoning and passive content echoing, while adversarial context significantly degraded performance in 14 models (mean -5.4 pp). Expert context also significantly increased leading-diagnosis accuracy in all 21 models, whereas adversarial context significantly reduced it in 13. Multi-turn disagreement challenges revealed distinct model phenotypes, from highly conformist to dogmatic, with adversarial arguments remaining a vulnerability even in otherwise resilient models. Inference-time scaling reduced harmful echoing of clinician-introduced recommendations across WHO harm-severity tiers by 62.7% for mild, 57.9% for moderate, 76.3% for severe, and 83.5% for death-tier recommendations. Inference-time prompting recovered diagnostic accuracy lost to adversarial context while preserving expert-context benefits across GPT-5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, and Gemini 3 Flash, and sharply reduced highly consistent harmful echoing across severity tiers. These findings provide a foundation for evaluating clinician-AI collaboration and introduce interactive metrics and mitigation strategies essential to safety and robustness.

cs.HC↗

arXiv2026

Large Language Models for Large-Scale, Rigorous Qualitative Analysis in Applied Health Services Research

Large language models (LLMs) show promise for improving the efficiency of qualitative analysis in large, multi-site health-services research. Yet methodological guidance for LLM integration into qualitative analysis and evidence of their impact on real-world research methods and outcomes remain limited. We developed a model- and task-agnostic framework for designing human-LLM qualitative analysis methods to support diverse analytic aims. Within a multi-site study of diabetes care at Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), we leveraged the framework to implement human-LLM methods for (1) qualitative synthesis of researcher-generated summaries to produce comparative feedback reports and (2) deductive coding of 167 interview transcripts to refine a practice-transformation intervention. LLM assistance enabled timely feedback to practitioners and the incorporation of large-scale qualitative data to inform theory and practice changes. This work demonstrates how LLMs can be integrated into applied health-services research to enhance efficiency while preserving rigor, offering guidance for continued innovation with LLMs in qualitative research.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2026

AI-generated data contamination erodes pathological variability and diagnostic reliability

Generative artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly populating medical records with synthetic content, creating a feedback loop where future models are increasingly at risk of training on uncurated AI-generated data. However, the clinical consequences of this AI-generated data contamination remain unexplored. Here, we show that in the absence of mandatory human verification, this self-referential cycle drives a rapid erosion of pathological variability and diagnostic reliability. By analysing more than 800,000 synthetic data points across clinical text generation, vision-language reporting, and medical image synthesis, we find that models progressively converge toward generic phenotypes regardless of the model architecture. Specifically, rare but critical findings, including pneumothorax and effusions, vanish from the synthetic content generated by AI models, while demographic representations skew heavily toward middle-aged male phenotypes. Crucially, this degradation is masked by false diagnostic confidence; models continue to issue reassuring reports while failing to detect life-threatening pathology, with false reassurance rates tripling to 40%. Blinded physician evaluation confirms that this decoupling of confidence and accuracy renders AI-generated documentation clinically useless after just two generations. We systematically evaluate three mitigation strategies, finding that while synthetic volume scaling fails to prevent collapse, mixing real data with quality-aware filtering effectively preserves diversity. Ultimately, our results suggest that without policy-mandated human oversight, the deployment of generative AI threatens to degrade the very healthcare data ecosystems it relies upon.

cs.CY↗

arXiv2026

Training-Free Adaptation of New-Generation LLMs using Legacy Clinical Models

Adapting language models to the clinical domain through continued pretraining and instruction tuning requires costly retraining for each new model generation. We propose Cross-Architecture Proxy Tuning (CAPT), a model-ensembling approach that enables training-free adaptation of state-of-the-art general-domain models using existing clinical models. CAPT supports models with disjoint vocabularies, leveraging contrastive decoding to selectively inject clinically relevant signals while preserving the general-domain model's reasoning and fluency. On six clinical classification and text-generation tasks, CAPT with a new-generation general-domain model and an older-generation clinical model consistently outperforms both models individually and state-of-the-art ensembling approaches (average +17.6\% over UniTE, +41.4\% over proxy tuning across tasks). Through token-level analysis and physician case studies, we demonstrate that CAPT amplifies clinically actionable language, reduces context errors, and increases clinical specificity. This technique especially benefits healthcare institutions with constrained computational capacity that cannot support iterative clinical training and want to adopt emerging general-domain model advances.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Monitoring Deployed AI Systems in Health Care

Post-deployment monitoring of artificial intelligence (AI) systems in health care is essential to ensure their safety, quality, and sustained benefit-and to support governance decisions about which systems to update, modify, or decommission. Motivated by these needs, we developed a framework for monitoring deployed AI systems grounded in the mandate to take specific actions when they fail to behave as intended. This framework, which is now actively used at Stanford Health Care, is organized around three complementary principles: system integrity, performance, and impact. System integrity monitoring focuses on maximizing system uptime, detecting runtime errors, and identifying when changes to the surrounding IT ecosystem have unintended effects. Performance monitoring focuses on maintaining accurate system behavior in the face of changing health care practices (and thus input data) over time. Impact monitoring assesses whether a deployed system continues to have value in the form of benefit to clinicians and patients. Drawing on examples of deployed AI systems at our academic medical center, we provide practical guidance for creating monitoring plans based on these principles that specify which metrics to measure, when those metrics should be reviewed, who is responsible for acting when metrics change, and what concrete follow-up actions should be taken-for both traditional and generative AI. We also discuss challenges to implementing this framework, including the effort and cost of monitoring for health systems with limited resources and the difficulty of incorporating data-driven monitoring practices into complex organizations where conflicting priorities and definitions of success often coexist. This framework offers a practical template and starting point for health systems seeking to ensure that AI deployments remain safe and effective over time.

q-bio.OT↗

arXiv2025

Structured Prompts Improve Evaluation of Language Models

As language models (LMs) are increasingly adopted across domains, high-quality benchmarking frameworks are essential for guiding deployment decisions. In practice, however, frameworks such as Holistic Evaluation of Language Models (HELM) typically evaluate models under a single static prompt configuration, even though model behavior depends strongly on prompt choice. As a result, reported scores can reflect prompt choice as much as model capability. Declarative prompting frameworks such as DSPy offer a scalable way to evaluate models under a set of structured prompting strategies rather than a static prompt configuration. We present a reproducible DSPy+HELM framework for studying how prompt choice impacts reported benchmark outcomes. Using five prompting methods, we evaluate four frontier and two open-source LMs across seven benchmarks against existing HELM baseline scores. By evaluating LMs across a family of prompt configurations, we find that prompt choice can materially impact leaderboard outcomes. In particular, structured prompting improves performance (by 6% on average), alters comparisons (leaderboard rankings shift on 5/7 benchmarks), with most gains coming from introducing chain-of-thought, and little additional benefit from more advanced optimizers. To our knowledge, this is the first study to systematically integrate structured prompting into an established evaluation framework and quantify how prompt choice alone can impact benchmark conclusions. We open-source (i) DSPy+HELM Evaluation (https://github.com/stanford-crfm/helm/pull/3893) and (ii) Prompt Optimization Pipeline (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/dspy-helm).

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

APRIL: Annotations for Policy evaluation with Reliable Inference from LLMs

Off-policy evaluation (OPE) estimates the value of a contextual bandit policy prior to deployment. As such, OPE plays a critical role in ensuring safety in high-stakes domains such as healthcare. However, standard OPE approaches are limited by the size and coverage of the behavior dataset. While previous work has explored using expert-labeled counterfactual annotations to enhance dataset coverage, obtaining such annotations is expensive, limiting the scalability of prior approaches. We propose leveraging large language models (LLMs) to generate counterfactual annotations for OPE in medical domains. Our method uses domain knowledge to guide LLMs in predicting how key clinical features evolve under alternate treatments. These predicted features can then be transformed using known reward functions to create counterfactual annotations. We first evaluate the ability of several LLMs to predict clinical features across two patient subsets in MIMIC-IV, finding that state-of-the-art LLMs achieve comparable performance. Building on this capacity to predict clinical features, we generate LLM-based counterfactual annotations and incorporate them into an OPE estimator. Our empirical results analyze the benefits of counterfactual annotations under varying degrees of shift between the behavior and target policies. We find that in most cases, the LLM-based counterfactual annotations significantly improve OPE estimates up to a point. We provide an entropy-based metric to identify when additional annotations cease to be useful. Our results demonstrate that LLM-based counterfactual annotations offer a scalable approach for addressing coverage limitations in healthcare datasets, enabling safer deployment of decision-making policies in clinical settings.

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Reflections from Research Roundtables at the Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning (CHIL) 2025

The 6th Annual Conference on Health, Inference, and Learning (CHIL 2025), hosted by the Association for Health Learning and Inference (AHLI), was held in person on June 25-27, 2025, at the University of California, Berkeley, in Berkeley, California, USA. As part of this year's program, we hosted Research Roundtables to catalyze collaborative, small-group dialogue around critical, timely topics at the intersection of machine learning and healthcare. Each roundtable was moderated by a team of senior and junior chairs who fostered open exchange, intellectual curiosity, and inclusive engagement. The sessions emphasized rigorous discussion of key challenges, exploration of emerging opportunities, and collective ideation toward actionable directions in the field. In total, eight roundtables were held by 19 roundtable chairs on topics of "Explainability, Interpretability, and Transparency," "Uncertainty, Bias, and Fairness," "Causality," "Domain Adaptation," "Foundation Models," "Learning from Small Medical Data," "Multimodal Methods," and "Scalable, Translational Healthcare Solutions."

cs.LG↗

arXiv2025

Retrieval-Augmented Guardrails for AI-Drafted Patient-Portal Messages: Error Taxonomy Construction and Large-Scale Evaluation

Asynchronous patient-clinician messaging via EHR portals is a growing source of clinician workload, prompting interest in large language models (LLMs) to assist with draft responses. However, LLM outputs may contain clinical inaccuracies, omissions, or tone mismatches, making robust evaluation essential. Our contributions are threefold: (1) we introduce a clinically grounded error ontology comprising 5 domains and 59 granular error codes, developed through inductive coding and expert adjudication; (2) we develop a retrieval-augmented evaluation pipeline (RAEC) that leverages semantically similar historical message-response pairs to improve judgment quality; and (3) we provide a two-stage prompting architecture using DSPy to enable scalable, interpretable, and hierarchical error detection. Our approach assesses the quality of drafts both in isolation and with reference to similar past message-response pairs retrieved from institutional archives. Using a two-stage DSPy pipeline, we compared baseline and reference-enhanced evaluations on over 1,500 patient messages. Retrieval context improved error identification in domains such as clinical completeness and workflow appropriateness. Human validation on 100 messages demonstrated superior agreement (concordance = 50% vs. 33%) and performance (F1 = 0.500 vs. 0.256) of context-enhanced labels vs. baseline, supporting the use of our RAEC pipeline as AI guardrails for patient messaging.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MedFactEval and MedAgentBrief: A Framework and Workflow for Generating and Evaluating Factual Clinical Summaries

Evaluating factual accuracy in Large Language Model (LLM)-generated clinical text is a critical barrier to adoption, as expert review is unscalable for the continuous quality assurance these systems require. We address this challenge with two complementary contributions. First, we introduce MedFactEval, a framework for scalable, fact-grounded evaluation where clinicians define high-salience key facts and an "LLM Jury"--a multi-LLM majority vote--assesses their inclusion in generated summaries. Second, we present MedAgentBrief, a model-agnostic, multi-step workflow designed to generate high-quality, factual discharge summaries. To validate our evaluation framework, we established a gold-standard reference using a seven-physician majority vote on clinician-defined key facts from inpatient cases. The MedFactEval LLM Jury achieved almost perfect agreement with this panel (Cohen's kappa=81%), a performance statistically non-inferior to that of a single human expert (kappa=67%, P < 0.001). Our work provides both a robust evaluation framework (MedFactEval) and a high-performing generation workflow (MedAgentBrief), offering a comprehensive approach to advance the responsible deployment of generative AI in clinical workflows.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MedVAL: Toward Expert-Level Medical Text Validation with Language Models

With the growing use of language models (LMs) in clinical environments, there is an immediate need to evaluate the accuracy and safety of LM-generated medical text. Currently, such evaluation relies solely on manual physician review. However, detecting errors in LM-generated text is challenging because 1) manual review is costly and 2) expert-composed reference outputs are often unavailable in real-world settings. While the "LLM-as-a-judge" paradigm offers scalable evaluation, even frontier LMs can miss subtle but clinically significant errors. We propose MedVAL, a novel, self-supervised, data-efficient distillation method that leverages synthetic data to train evaluator LMs to assess whether LM-generated medical outputs are factually consistent with inputs, without requiring physician labels or reference outputs. To evaluate LM performance, we introduce MedVAL-Bench, a dataset of 840 physician-annotated outputs across 6 diverse medical tasks capturing real-world challenges. Across 10 state-of-the-art LMs spanning open-source and proprietary models, MedVAL distillation significantly improves (p < 0.001) alignment with physicians across seen and unseen tasks, increasing average F1 scores from 66% to 83%. Despite strong baseline performance, MedVAL improves the best-performing proprietary LM (GPT-4o) by 8% without training on physician-labeled data, demonstrating a performance statistically non-inferior to a single human expert on a subset annotated by multiple physicians (p < 0.001). To support a scalable, risk-aware pathway towards clinical integration, we open-source: 1) Codebase (https://github.com/StanfordMIMI/MedVAL), 2) MedVAL-Bench (https://huggingface.co/datasets/stanfordmimi/MedVAL-Bench), 3) MedVAL-4B (https://huggingface.co/stanfordmimi/MedVAL-4B). Our benchmark provides evidence of LMs approaching expert-level ability in validating AI-generated medical text.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

BRIDGE: Benchmarking Large Language Models for Understanding Real-world Clinical Practice Text

Large language models (LLMs) hold great promise for medical applications and are evolving rapidly, with new models being released at an accelerated pace. However, benchmarking on large-scale real-world data such as electronic health records (EHRs) is critical, as clinical decisions are directly informed by these sources, yet current evaluations remain limited. Most existing benchmarks rely on medical exam-style questions or PubMed-derived text, failing to capture the complexity of real-world clinical data. Others focus narrowly on specific application scenarios, limiting their generalizability across broader clinical use. To address this gap, we present BRIDGE, a comprehensive multilingual benchmark comprising 87 tasks sourced from real-world clinical data sources across nine languages. It covers eight major task types spanning the entire continuum of patient care across six clinical stages and 20 representative applications, including triage and referral, consultation, information extraction, diagnosis, prognosis, and billing coding, and involves 14 clinical specialties. We systematically evaluated 95 LLMs (including DeepSeek-R1, GPT-4o, Gemini series, and Qwen3 series) under various inference strategies. Our results reveal substantial performance variation across model sizes, languages, natural language processing tasks, and clinical specialties. Notably, we demonstrate that open-source LLMs can achieve performance comparable to proprietary models, while medically fine-tuned LLMs based on older architectures often underperform versus updated general-purpose models. The BRIDGE and its corresponding leaderboard serve as a foundational resource and a unique reference for the development and evaluation of new LLMs in real-world clinical text understanding. The BRIDGE leaderboard: https://huggingface.co/spaces/YLab-Open/BRIDGE-Medical-Leaderboard

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

TIMER: Temporal Instruction Modeling and Evaluation for Longitudinal Clinical Records

Large language models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting in medical tasks, yet processing Electronic Health Records (EHRs) presents unique challenges due to their longitudinal nature. While LLMs' capabilities to perform medical tasks continue to improve, their ability to reason over temporal dependencies across multiple patient visits and time frames remains unexplored. We introduce TIMER (Temporal Instruction Modeling and Evaluation for Longitudinal Clinical Records), a framework that incorporate instruction-response pairs grounding to different parts of a patient's record as a critical dimension in both instruction evaluation and tuning for longitudinal clinical records. We develop TIMER-Bench, the first time-aware benchmark that evaluates temporal reasoning capabilities over longitudinal EHRs, as well as TIMER-Instruct, an instruction-tuning methodology for LLMs to learn reasoning over time. We demonstrate that models fine-tuned with TIMER-Instruct improve performance by 7.3% on human-generated benchmarks and 9.2% on TIMER-Bench, indicating that temporal instruction-tuning improves model performance for reasoning over EHR.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2024

Identifying Reasons for Contraceptive Switching from Real-World Data Using Large Language Models

Prescription contraceptives play a critical role in supporting women's reproductive health. With nearly 50 million women in the United States using contraceptives, understanding the factors that drive contraceptives selection and switching is of significant interest. However, many factors related to medication switching are often only captured in unstructured clinical notes and can be difficult to extract. Here, we evaluate the zero-shot abilities of a recently developed large language model, GPT-4 (via HIPAA-compliant Microsoft Azure API), to identify reasons for switching between classes of contraceptives from the UCSF Information Commons clinical notes dataset. We demonstrate that GPT-4 can accurately extract reasons for contraceptive switching, outperforming baseline BERT-based models with microF1 scores of 0.849 and 0.881 for contraceptive start and stop extraction, respectively. Human evaluation of GPT-4-extracted reasons for switching showed 91.4% accuracy, with minimal hallucinations. Using extracted reasons, we identified patient preference, adverse events, and insurance as key reasons for switching using unsupervised topic modeling approaches. Notably, we also showed using our approach that "weight gain/mood change" and "insurance coverage" are disproportionately found as reasons for contraceptive switching in specific demographic populations. Our code and supplemental data are available at https://github.com/BMiao10/contraceptive-switching.

cs.CL↗