Luyi Jiang

Chao Ding, Mouxiao Bian, Tianbin Li et al.

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

Jinru Ding, Lu Lu, Chao Ding et al.

Recent advances in medical large language models (LLMs), multimodal models, and agents demand evaluation frameworks that reflect real clinical workflows and safety constraints. We present MedBench v4, a nationwide, cloud-based benchmarking infrastructure comprising over 700,000 expert-curated tasks spanning 24 primary and 91 secondary specialties, with dedicated tracks for LLMs, multimodal models, and agents. Items undergo multi-stage refinement and multi-round review by clinicians from more than 500 institutions, and open-ended responses are scored by an LLM-as-a-judge calibrated to human ratings. We evaluate 15 frontier models. Base LLMs reach a mean overall score of 54.1/100 (best: Claude Sonnet 4.5, 62.5/100), but safety and ethics remain low (18.4/100). Multimodal models perform worse overall (mean 47.5/100; best: GPT-5, 54.9/100), with solid perception yet weaker cross-modal reasoning. Agents built on the same backbones substantially improve end-to-end performance (mean 79.8/100), with Claude Sonnet 4.5-based agents achieving up to 85.3/100 overall and 88.9/100 on safety tasks. MedBench v4 thus reveals persisting gaps in multimodal reasoning and safety for base models, while showing that governance-aware agentic orchestration can markedly enhance benchmarked clinical readiness without sacrificing capability. By aligning tasks with Chinese clinical guidelines and regulatory priorities, the platform offers a practical reference for hospitals, developers, and policymakers auditing medical AI.

Luyi Jiang, Jiayuan Chen, Lu Lu et al.

The evaluation and improvement of medical large language models (LLMs) are critical for their real-world deployment, particularly in ensuring accuracy, safety, and ethical alignment. Existing frameworks inadequately dissect domain-specific error patterns or address cross-modal challenges. This study introduces a granular error taxonomy through systematic analysis of top 10 models on MedBench, categorizing incorrect responses into eight types: Omissions, Hallucination, Format Mismatch, Causal Reasoning Deficiency, Contextual Inconsistency, Unanswered, Output Error, and Deficiency in Medical Language Generation. Evaluation of 10 leading models reveals vulnerabilities: despite achieving 0.86 accuracy in medical knowledge recall, critical reasoning tasks show 96.3% omission, while safety ethics evaluations expose alarming inconsistency (robustness score: 0.79) under option shuffled. Our analysis uncovers systemic weaknesses in knowledge boundary enforcement and multi-step reasoning. To address these, we propose a tiered optimization strategy spanning four levels, from prompt engineering and knowledge-augmented retrieval to hybrid neuro-symbolic architectures and causal reasoning frameworks. This work establishes an actionable roadmap for developing clinically robust LLMs while redefining evaluation paradigms through error-driven insights, ultimately advancing the safety and trustworthiness of AI in high-stakes medical environments.