Ankit Sakhuja

Mohammadreza Ghaffarzadeh-Esfahani, Mahdi Ghaffarzadeh-Esfahani, Arian Salahi-Niri et al.

This study compared the performance of classical feature-based machine learning models (CMLs) and large language models (LLMs) in predicting COVID-19 mortality using high-dimensional tabular data from 9,134 patients across four hospitals. Seven CML models, including XGBoost and random forest (RF), were evaluated alongside eight LLMs, such as GPT-4 and Mistral-7b, which performed zero-shot classification on text-converted structured data. Additionally, Mistral- 7b was fine-tuned using the QLoRA approach. XGBoost and RF demonstrated superior performance among CMLs, achieving F1 scores of 0.87 and 0.83 for internal and external validation, respectively. GPT-4 led the LLM category with an F1 score of 0.43, while fine-tuning Mistral-7b significantly improved its recall from 1% to 79%, yielding a stable F1 score of 0.74 during external validation. Although LLMs showed moderate performance in zero-shot classification, fine-tuning substantially enhanced their effectiveness, potentially bridging the gap with CML models. However, CMLs still outperformed LLMs in handling high-dimensional tabular data tasks. This study highlights the potential of both CMLs and fine-tuned LLMs in medical predictive modeling, while emphasizing the current superiority of CMLs for structured data analysis.

Akhil Vaid, Joshua Lampert, Juhee Lee et al.

Generative Large Language Models (LLMs) hold significant promise in healthcare, demonstrating capabilities such as passing medical licensing exams and providing clinical knowledge. However, their current use as information retrieval tools is limited by challenges like data staleness, resource demands, and occasional generation of incorrect information. This study assessed the potential of LLMs to function as autonomous agents in a simulated tertiary care medical center, using real-world clinical cases across multiple specialties. Both proprietary and open-source LLMs were evaluated, with Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) enhancing contextual relevance. Proprietary models, particularly GPT-4, generally outperformed open-source models, showing improved guideline adherence and more accurate responses with RAG. The manual evaluation by expert clinicians was crucial in validating models' outputs, underscoring the importance of human oversight in LLM operation. Further, the study emphasizes Natural Language Programming (NLP) as the appropriate paradigm for modifying model behavior, allowing for precise adjustments through tailored prompts and real-world interactions. This approach highlights the potential of LLMs to significantly enhance and supplement clinical decision-making, while also emphasizing the value of continuous expert involvement and the flexibility of NLP to ensure their reliability and effectiveness in healthcare settings.

Shanghua Gao, Ayush Noori, Richard Zhu et al.

Treatment reasoning underpins every therapeutic decision, integrating disease context, comorbidities, medications, contraindications, and evolving biomedical knowledge to select an appropriate therapy. It is inherently iterative: candidates are weighed against many constraints, revised as evidence emerges, and grounded in verifiable sources. Here we introduce ATHENA-R1, an AI agent for treatment reasoning across all FDA approved drugs since 1939, trained by reinforcement learning over a universe of 212 biomedical tools. At each step it identifies missing information, selects and runs relevant tools, and incorporates the evidence. To train it without human-annotated traces, we build a two-level self-learning framework: multi-agent systems construct the tools, tasks, and reasoning trajectories for supervised fine-tuning, then reinforcement learning with scientific feedback rewards reasoning quality (evidence gathering, grounded tool use, logical non-redundancy). Across five benchmarks of 3,168 drug reasoning tasks and 456 patient treatment cases, ATHENA-R1 outperforms language models and tool-use systems, reaching 94.7% accuracy on open-ended drug reasoning and 82.9% on treatment reasoning, 17.8 and 10.7 points above GPT-5. In blinded evaluations by experts from 28 rare disease organizations, it is preferred over reference models on all criteria, and physicians rated it favorably on complex hospitalized cardiovascular and infectious-disease cases. Adverse-event hypotheses it generated, tested in electronic health records from 5.4 million patients, reached adjusted odds ratios of 1.48-1.84, with no elevation among negative controls. Because it requires knowing what evidence to seek before concluding, treatment reasoning has long been hard for AI; we show it can be reframed as a learnable process of iterative evidence gathering that reinforcement learning can train AI to perform.