Rogerio Corga Da Silva

Rogerio Corga Da Silva, Miguel Romano, Tiago Mendes et al.

Background: Clinical documentation and information retrieval consume over half of physicians working hours, contributing to cognitive overload and burnout. While artificial intelligence offers a potential solution, concerns over hallucinations and source reliability have limited adoption at the point of care. Objective: To evaluate clinician-reported time savings, decision-making support, and satisfaction with DR. INFO, an agentic AI clinical assistant, in routine clinical practice. Methods: In this prospective, single-arm pilot study, 29 clinicians across multiple specialties in Portuguese healthcare institutions used DR. INFO v1.0 over five working days within a two-week period. Outcomes were assessed via daily Likert-scale evaluations and a final Net Promoter Score. Non-parametric methods were used throughout. Results: Clinicians reported high perceived time saving (mean 4.27/5; 95% CI: 3.97-4.57) and decision support (4.16/5; 95% CI: 3.86-4.45), with ratings stable across all study days and no evidence of attrition bias. The Net Promoter Score was 81.2, with no detractors. Conclusions: Clinicians across specialties and career stages reported sustained satisfaction with DR. INFO for both time efficiency and clinical decision support. Validation in larger, controlled studies with objective outcome measures is warranted.

Sandhanakrishnan Ravichandran, Shivesh Kumar, Rogerio Corga Da Silva et al.

Evaluating large language models (LLMs) on their ability to generate high-quality, accurate, situationally aware answers to clinical questions requires going beyond conventional benchmarks to assess how these systems behave in complex, high-stake clincal scenarios. Traditional evaluations are often limited to multiple-choice questions that fail to capture essential competencies such as contextual reasoning, awareness and uncertainty handling etc. To address these limitations, we evaluate our agentic, RAG-based clinical support assistant, DR.INFO, using HealthBench, a rubric-driven benchmark composed of open-ended, expert-annotated health conversations. On the Hard subset of 1,000 challenging examples, DR.INFO achieves a HealthBench score of 0.51, substantially outperforming leading frontier LLMs (GPT-5, o3, Grok 3, GPT-4, Gemini 2.5, etc.) across all behavioral axes (accuracy, completeness, instruction following, etc.). In a separate 100-sample evaluation against similar agentic RAG assistants (OpenEvidence, Pathway.md), it maintains a performance lead with a health-bench score of 0.54. These results highlight DR.INFOs strengths in communication, instruction following, and accuracy, while also revealing areas for improvement in context awareness and completeness of a response. Overall, the findings underscore the utility of behavior-level, rubric-based evaluation for building a reliable and trustworthy AI-enabled clinical support assistant.