Yining Yuan

Aditya Shukla, Yining Yuan, Ben Tamo et al.

Large language models (LLMs) can generate fluent clinical summaries of remote therapeutic monitoring time series. However, it remains unclear whether these narratives faithfully capture clinically significant events, such as sustained abnormalities. Existing evaluation metrics primarily focus on semantic similarity and linguistic quality, leaving event-level correctness largely unmeasured. To address this gap, we introduce an event-based evaluation framework for multimodal time-series summarization using the Technology-Integrated Health Management (TIHM)-1.5 dementia monitoring dataset. Clinically grounded daily events are derived through rule-based abnormal thresholds and temporal persistence criteria. Model-generated summaries are then aligned with these structured facts. Our evaluation protocol measures abnormality recall, duration recall, measurement coverage, and hallucinated event mentions. We benchmark three approaches: zero-shot prompting, statistical prompting, and a vision-based pipeline that uses rendered time-series visualizations. The results reveal a striking decoupling between conventional metrics and clinical event fidelity. Models that achieve high semantic similarity scores often exhibit near-zero abnormality recall. In contrast, the vision-based approach demonstrates the strongest event alignment, achieving 45.7% abnormality recall and 100% duration recall. These findings underscore the importance of event-aware evaluation to ensure reliable clinical time-series summarization.

J. Ben Tamo, Nishant S. Chouhan, Micky C. Nnamdi et al.

Surgical decision-making is complex and requires understanding causal relationships between patient characteristics, interventions, and outcomes. In high-stakes settings like spinal fusion or scoliosis correction, accurate estimation of individualized treatment effects (ITEs) remains limited due to the reliance on traditional statistical methods that struggle with complex, heterogeneous data. In this study, we develop a multi-task meta-learning framework, X-MultiTask, for ITE estimation that models each surgical decision (e.g., anterior vs. posterior approach, surgery vs. no surgery) as a distinct task while learning shared representations across tasks. To strengthen causal validity, we incorporate the inverse probability weighting (IPW) into the training objective. We evaluate our approach on two datasets: (1) a public spinal fusion dataset (1,017 patients) to assess the effect of anterior vs. posterior approaches on complication severity; and (2) a private AIS dataset (368 patients) to analyze the impact of posterior spinal fusion (PSF) vs. non-surgical management on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Our model achieves the highest average AUC (0.84) in the anterior group and maintains competitive performance in the posterior group (0.77). It outperforms baselines in treatment effect estimation with the lowest overall $ε_{\text{NN-PEHE}}$ (0.2778) and $ε_{\text{ATE}}$ (0.0763). Similarly, when predicting PROs in AIS, X-MultiTask consistently shows superior performance across all domains, with $ε_{\text{NN-PEHE}}$ = 0.2551 and $ε_{\text{ATE}}$ = 0.0902. By providing robust, patient-specific causal estimates, X-MultiTask offers a powerful tool to advance personalized surgical care and improve patient outcomes. The code is available at https://github.com/Wizaaard/X-MultiTask.

Yining Yuan, J. Ben Tamo, Micky C. Nnamdi et al.

Large language models (LLMs) show promise in automating clinical diagnosis, yet their non-transparent decision-making and limited alignment with diagnostic standards hinder trust and clinical adoption. We address this challenge by proposing a two-stage diagnostic framework that enhances transparency, trustworthiness, and reliability. First, we introduce Evidence-Guided Diagnostic Reasoning (EGDR), which guides LLMs to generate structured diagnostic hypotheses by interleaving evidence extraction with logical reasoning grounded in DSM-5 criteria. Second, we propose a Diagnosis Confidence Scoring (DCS) module that evaluates the factual accuracy and logical consistency of generated diagnoses through two interpretable metrics: the Knowledge Attribution Score (KAS) and the Logic Consistency Score (LCS). Evaluated on the D4 dataset with pseudo-labels, EGDR outperforms direct in-context prompting and Chain-of-Thought (CoT) across five LLMs. For instance, on OpenBioLLM, EGDR improves accuracy from 0.31 (Direct) to 0.76 and increases DCS from 0.50 to 0.67. On MedLlama, DCS rises from 0.58 (CoT) to 0.77. Overall, EGDR yields up to +45% accuracy and +36% DCS gains over baseline methods, offering a clinically grounded, interpretable foundation for trustworthy AI-assisted diagnosis.