Ananya Mantravadi

Ananya Mantravadi, Harshit Rajgarhia, Prasanna Desikan et al.

Clinical protocol-execution tasks -- checking a lab value, applying a threshold, placing a correctly structured FHIR order -- are natural candidates for RL from world feedback: once clinical SMEs encode decision logic into a verifier, that verifier grades unlimited rollouts without per-episode annotation. But applying RL requires a sound feedback channel and sufficient base capability. We audit MedAgentBench v1/v2, find a 41.7\% silent-finish ceiling that makes inaction the RL dominant strategy, and construct \textbf{MedAgentBench-v3 (MAB-v3)} (508 tasks, 8.9\% ceiling). Training Qwen3-8B exposes two structural barriers: a \emph{capability ceiling} (10/20 task types have 0\% base performance, zero gradient) and a \emph{format-knowledge barrier} (3/20 types require exact clinical codes undiscoverable by exploration). Pure RL reaches 18.2\% pass@1 vs.\ 34.1\% for rule-based SFT; the 15.9~pp gap is attributable entirely to these barriers. A decision/format-knowledge/lookup taxonomy predicts RL learnability and prescribes the fix: SFT to inject codes, RL to learn conditionals.

Prasanna Desikan, Harshit Rajgarhia, Shivali Dalmia et al.

AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Evaluating these systems requires benchmarks: structured combinations of tasks, datasets, and metrics that enable reproducible, comparable measurement of what a model can do. The central challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alone, but the absence of systematic methods to measure reliability, safety, and clinical relevance under real-world conditions. Most existing benchmarks test what a model knows; too few test whether it can perform reliably and without failing across the full complexity of real clinical tasks. Current benchmarks have accumulated through ad hoc dataset construction optimized for narrow task performance: frontier models achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing examinations, but when evaluated across real clinical tasks, performance degrades sharply, scoring 0.74--0.85 on documentation, 0.61--0.76 on clinical decision support, and only 0.53--0.63 on administrative and workflow tasks \cite{medhelm}. High benchmark scores give a false sense of deployment readiness, and the gap between performance and utility widens precisely as AI systems take on more consequential clinical roles. Without a principled framework for benchmark design, the field cannot determine whether poor clinical performance reflects model limitations or failures in how performance is being measured.

Shivali Dalmia, Ananya Mantravadi, Prasanna Desikan

The work in this paper evaluates zero-shot and few-shot large language models (LLMs) for safety-critical clinical action extraction using the CLIP discharge-note dataset, with particular emphasis on transitions of care and post-discharge patient safety. To manage the complexity of clinical documentation, we introduce a two-stage extraction framework that decomposes discharge notes, that are written in narrative form, into fine-grained, explicitly actionable clinical tasks through a staged prompting strategy. Our contributions include a systematic assessment of generative LLMs for clinical action extraction, a detailed comparison between general-purpose LLMs and task-specific supervised BERT-based models, and an analysis of annotation inconsistencies across different action categories. We show that contemporary LLMs achieve performance comparable to or exceeding supervised models on binary actionability detection, while supervised baselines retain a meaningful advantage on fine-grained multi-label category classification, despite the absence of task-specific fine-tuning and under strict data-privacy constraints. Qualitative error analysis reveals that many failures stem from misalignment between model reasoning and dataset annotation conventions, particularly in cases involving implicit clinical actions and rigid structural labeling rules. These results indicate that reported performance reflects model limitations due to lack of clinical reasoning, that is not captured by plain annotations. Labels without rationales make it impossible to distinguish clinical reasoning failures from annotation convention mismatches. Advancing clinical NLP requires reasoning-annotated datasets that document why specific spans are actionable, not merely which spans were labeled, enabling proper evaluation of model clinical understanding.

Ananya Mantravadi, Shivali Dalmia, Abhishek Mukherji

Reliable clinical decision support requires medical AI agents capable of safe, multi-step reasoning over structured electronic health records (EHRs). While large language models (LLMs) show promise in healthcare, existing benchmarks inadequately assess performance on action-based tasks involving threshold evaluation, temporal aggregation, and conditional logic. We introduce ART, an Action-based Reasoning clinical Task benchmark for medical AI agents, which mines real-world EHR data to create challenging tasks targeting known reasoning weaknesses. Through analysis of existing benchmarks, we identify three dominant error categories: retrieval failures, aggregation errors, and conditional logic misjudgments. Our four-stage pipeline -- scenario identification, task generation, quality audit, and evaluation -- produces diverse, clinically validated tasks grounded in real patient data. Evaluating GPT-4o-mini and Claude 3.5 Sonnet on 600 tasks shows near-perfect retrieval after prompt refinement, but substantial gaps in aggregation (28--64%) and threshold reasoning (32--38%). By exposing failure modes in action-oriented EHR reasoning, ART advances toward more reliable clinical agents, an essential step for AI systems that reduce cognitive load and administrative burden, supporting workforce capacity in high-demand care settings