Thomas A. Buckley

Thomas Buckley, Leslie Schumm, Manor Askenazi et al.

In this paper we extend our earlier work of (Rietman et al. 2022) presenting an application of physical Reservoir Computing (RC) to the classification of handwritten and spoken digits. We utilize an unpoled cube of Lead Zirconate Titanate (PZT) as a computational substrate to process these datasets. Our results demonstrate that the PZT reservoir achieves 89.0% accuracy on MNIST handwritten digits, representing a 2.4 percentage point improvement over logistic regression baselines applied to the same preprocessed data. However, for the AudioMNIST spoken digits dataset, the reservoir system (88.2% accuracy) performs equivalently to baseline methods (88.1% accuracy), suggesting that reservoir computing provides the greatest benefits for classification tasks of intermediate difficulty where linear methods underperform but the problem remains learnable. PZT is a well-known material already used in semiconductor applications, presenting a low-power computational substrate that can be integrated with digital algorithms. Our findings indicate that physical reservoirs excel when the task difficulty exceeds the capability of simple linear classifiers but remains within the computational capacity of the reservoir dynamics.

Peter G. Brodeur, Thomas A. Buckley, Zahir Kanjee et al.

A seminal paper published by Ledley and Lusted in 1959 introduced complex clinical diagnostic reasoning cases as the gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems, a standard that has held ever since. Here, we report the results of a physician evaluation of a large language model (LLM) on challenging clinical cases against a baseline of hundreds of physicians. We conduct five experiments to measure clinical reasoning across differential diagnosis generation, display of diagnostic reasoning, triage differential diagnosis, probabilistic reasoning, and management reasoning, all adjudicated by physician experts with validated psychometrics. We then report a real-world study comparing human expert and AI second opinions in randomly-selected patients in the emergency room of a major tertiary academic medical center in Boston, MA. We compared LLMs and board-certified physicians at three predefined diagnostic touchpoints: triage in the emergency room, initial evaluation by a physician, and admission to the hospital or intensive care unit. In all experiments--both vignettes and emergency room second opinions--the LLM displayed superhuman diagnostic and reasoning abilities, as well as continued improvement from prior generations of AI clinical decision support. Our study suggests that LLMs have achieved superhuman performance on general medical diagnostic and management reasoning, fulfilling the vision put forth by Ledley and Lusted, and motivating the urgent need for prospective trials.

Thomas A. Buckley, Riccardo Conci, Peter G. Brodeur et al.

BACKGROUND: For over a century, the New England Journal of Medicine Clinicopathological Conferences (CPCs) have tested the reasoning of expert physicians and, recently, artificial intelligence (AI). However, prior AI evaluations have focused on final diagnoses without addressing the multifaceted reasoning and presentation skills required of expert discussants. METHODS: Using 7102 CPCs (1923-2025) and 1021 Image Challenges (2006-2025), we conducted extensive physician annotation and automated processing to create CPC-Bench, a physician-validated benchmark spanning 10 text-based and multimodal tasks, against which we evaluated leading large language models (LLMs). Then, we developed "Dr. CaBot," an AI discussant designed to produce written and slide-based video presentations using only the case presentation, modeling the role of the human expert in these cases. RESULTS: When challenged with 377 contemporary CPCs, o3 (OpenAI) ranked the final diagnosis first in 60% of cases and within the top ten in 84% of cases, outperforming a 20-physician baseline; next-test selection accuracy reached 98%. Event-level physician annotations quantified AI diagnostic accuracy per unit of information. Performance was lower on literature search and image tasks; o3 and Gemini 2.5 Pro (Google) achieved 67% accuracy on image challenges. In blinded comparisons of CaBot vs. human expert-generated text, physicians misclassified the source of the differential in 46 of 62 (74%) of trials, and scored CaBot more favorably across quality dimensions. To promote research, we are releasing CaBot and CPC-Bench. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs exceed physician performance on complex text-based differential diagnosis and convincingly emulate expert medical presentations, but image interpretation and literature retrieval remain weaker. CPC-Bench and CaBot may enable transparent and continued tracking of progress in medical AI.