Anton Alyakin

Krithik Vishwanath, Mrigayu Ghosh, Anton Alyakin et al.

Specialized clinical AI assistants are rapidly entering medical practice, often framed as safer or more reliable than general-purpose large language models (LLMs). Yet, unlike frontier models, these clinical tools are rarely subjected to independent, quantitative evaluation, creating a critical evidence gap despite their growing influence on diagnosis, triage, and guideline interpretation. We assessed two widely deployed clinical AI systems (OpenEvidence and UpToDate Expert AI) against three state-of-the-art generalist LLMs (GPT-5, Gemini 3 Pro, and Claude Sonnet 4.5) using a 1,000-item mini-benchmark combining MedQA (medical knowledge) and HealthBench (clinician-alignment) tasks. Generalist models consistently outperformed clinical tools, with GPT-5 achieving the highest scores, while OpenEvidence and UpToDate demonstrated deficits in completeness, communication quality, context awareness, and systems-based safety reasoning. These findings reveal that tools marketed for clinical decision support may often lag behind frontier LLMs, underscoring the urgent need for transparent, independent evaluation before deployment in patient-facing workflows.

Krithik Vishwanath, Anton Alyakin, Mrigayu Ghosh et al.

The Congress of Neurological Surgeons Self-Assessment for Neurological Surgeons (CNS-SANS) questions are widely used by neurosurgical residents to prepare for written board examinations. Recently, these questions have also served as benchmarks for evaluating large language models' (LLMs) neurosurgical knowledge. This study aims to assess the performance of state-of-the-art LLMs on neurosurgery board-like questions and to evaluate their robustness to the inclusion of distractor statements. A comprehensive evaluation was conducted using 28 large language models. These models were tested on 2,904 neurosurgery board examination questions derived from the CNS-SANS. Additionally, the study introduced a distraction framework to assess the fragility of these models. The framework incorporated simple, irrelevant distractor statements containing polysemous words with clinical meanings used in non-clinical contexts to determine the extent to which such distractions degrade model performance on standard medical benchmarks. 6 of the 28 tested LLMs achieved board-passing outcomes, with the top-performing models scoring over 15.7% above the passing threshold. When exposed to distractions, accuracy across various model architectures was significantly reduced-by as much as 20.4%-with one model failing that had previously passed. Both general-purpose and medical open-source models experienced greater performance declines compared to proprietary variants when subjected to the added distractors. While current LLMs demonstrate an impressive ability to answer neurosurgery board-like exam questions, their performance is markedly vulnerable to extraneous, distracting information. These findings underscore the critical need for developing novel mitigation strategies aimed at bolstering LLM resilience against in-text distractions, particularly for safe and effective clinical deployment.

Kelly Marchisio, Youngser Park, Ali Saad-Eldin et al.

Much recent work in bilingual lexicon induction (BLI) views word embeddings as vectors in Euclidean space. As such, BLI is typically solved by finding a linear transformation that maps embeddings to a common space. Alternatively, word embeddings may be understood as nodes in a weighted graph. This framing allows us to examine a node's graph neighborhood without assuming a linear transform, and exploits new techniques from the graph matching optimization literature. These contrasting approaches have not been compared in BLI so far. In this work, we study the behavior of Euclidean versus graph-based approaches to BLI under differing data conditions and show that they complement each other when combined. We release our code at https://github.com/kellymarchisio/euc-v-graph-bli.

Krithik Vishwanath, Anton Alyakin, Daniel Alexander Alber et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have the potential to transform medicine, but real-world clinical scenarios contain extraneous information that can hinder performance. The rise of assistive technologies like ambient dictation, which automatically generates draft notes from live patient encounters, has the potential to introduce additional noise making it crucial to assess the ability of LLM's to filter relevant data. To investigate this, we developed MedDistractQA, a benchmark using USMLE-style questions embedded with simulated real-world distractions. Our findings show that distracting statements (polysemous words with clinical meanings used in a non-clinical context or references to unrelated health conditions) can reduce LLM accuracy by up to 17.9%. Commonly proposed solutions to improve model performance such as retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) and medical fine-tuning did not change this effect and in some cases introduced their own confounders and further degraded performance. Our findings suggest that LLMs natively lack the logical mechanisms necessary to distinguish relevant from irrelevant clinical information, posing challenges for real-world applications. MedDistractQA and our results highlights the need for robust mitigation strategies to enhance LLM resilience to extraneous information.

Shrutika Singh, Anton Alyakin, Daniel Alexander Alber et al.

The performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) on multiple-choice question (MCQ) benchmarks is frequently cited as proof of their medical capabilities. We hypothesized that LLM performance on medical MCQs may in part be illusory and driven by factors beyond medical content knowledge and reasoning capabilities. To assess this, we created a novel benchmark of free-response questions with paired MCQs (FreeMedQA). Using this benchmark, we evaluated three state-of-the-art LLMs (GPT-4o, GPT-3.5, and LLama-3-70B-instruct) and found an average absolute deterioration of 39.43% in performance on free-response questions relative to multiple-choice (p = 1.3 * 10-5) which was greater than the human performance decline of 22.29%. To isolate the role of the MCQ format on performance, we performed a masking study, iteratively masking out parts of the question stem. At 100% masking, the average LLM multiple-choice performance was 6.70% greater than random chance (p = 0.002) with one LLM (GPT-4o) obtaining an accuracy of 37.34%. Notably, for all LLMs the free-response performance was near zero. Our results highlight the shortcomings in medical MCQ benchmarks for overestimating the capabilities of LLMs in medicine, and, broadly, the potential for improving both human and machine assessments using LLM-evaluated free-response questions.

Gabriel R. Rosenbaum, Lavender Yao Jiang, Ivaxi Sheth et al.

Large language models (LLMs) have recently emerged as powerful tools, finding many medical applications. LLMs' ability to coalesce vast amounts of information from many sources to generate a response-a process similar to that of a human expert-has led many to see potential in deploying LLMs for clinical use. However, medicine is a setting where accurate reasoning is paramount. Many researchers are questioning the effectiveness of multiple choice question answering (MCQA) benchmarks, frequently used to test LLMs. Researchers and clinicians alike must have complete confidence in LLMs' abilities for them to be deployed in a medical setting. To address this need for understanding, we introduce a knowledge graph (KG)-based method to evaluate the biomedical reasoning abilities of LLMs. Essentially, we map how LLMs link medical concepts in order to better understand how they reason. We test GPT-4, Llama3-70b, and PalmyraMed-70b, a specialized medical model. We enlist a panel of medical students to review a total of 60 LLM-generated graphs and compare these graphs to BIOS, a large biomedical KG. We observe GPT-4 to perform best in our human review but worst in our ground truth comparison; vice-versa with PalmyraMed, the medical model. Our work provides a means of visualizing the medical reasoning pathways of LLMs so they can be implemented in clinical settings safely and effectively.

Lavender Y. Jiang, Angelica Chen, Xu Han et al.

Hospitals and healthcare systems rely on operational decisions that determine patient flow, cost, and quality of care. Despite strong performance on medical knowledge and conversational benchmarks, foundation models trained on general text may lack the specialized knowledge required for these operational decisions. We introduce Lang1, a family of models (100M-7B parameters) pretrained on a specialized corpus blending 80B clinical tokens from NYU Langone Health's EHRs and 627B tokens from the internet. To rigorously evaluate Lang1 in real-world settings, we developed the REalistic Medical Evaluation (ReMedE), a benchmark derived from 668,331 EHR notes that evaluates five critical tasks: 30-day readmission prediction, 30-day mortality prediction, length of stay, comorbidity coding, and predicting insurance claims denial. In zero-shot settings, both general-purpose and specialized models underperform on four of five tasks (36.6%-71.7% AUROC), with mortality prediction being an exception. After finetuning, Lang1-1B outperforms finetuned generalist models up to 70x larger and zero-shot models up to 671x larger, improving AUROC by 3.64%-6.75% and 1.66%-23.66% respectively. We also observed cross-task scaling with joint finetuning on multiple tasks leading to improvement on other tasks. Lang1-1B effectively transfers to out-of-distribution settings, including other clinical tasks and an external health system. Our findings suggest that predictive capabilities for hospital operations require explicit supervised finetuning, and that this finetuning process is made more efficient by in-domain pretraining on EHR. Our findings support the emerging view that specialized LLMs can compete with generalist models in specialized tasks, and show that effective healthcare systems AI requires the combination of in-domain pretraining, supervised finetuning, and real-world evaluation beyond proxy benchmarks.

Chi Hang, Ruiqi Deng, Lavender Yao Jiang et al.

Clinical measurements such as blood pressures and respiration rates are critical in diagnosing and monitoring patient outcomes. It is an important component of biomedical data, which can be used to train transformer-based language models (LMs) for improving healthcare delivery. It is, however, unclear whether LMs can effectively interpret and use clinical measurements. We investigate two questions: First, can LMs effectively leverage clinical measurements to answer related medical questions? Second, how to enhance an LM's performance on medical question-answering (QA) tasks that involve measurements? We performed a case study on blood pressure readings (BPs), a vital sign routinely monitored by medical professionals. We evaluated the performance of four LMs: BERT, BioBERT, MedAlpaca, and GPT-3.5, on our newly developed dataset, BPQA (Blood Pressure Question Answering). BPQA contains $100$ medical QA pairs that were verified by medical students and designed to rely on BPs . We found that GPT-3.5 and MedAlpaca (larger and medium sized LMs) benefit more from the inclusion of BPs than BERT and BioBERT (small sized LMs). Further, augmenting measurements with labels improves the performance of BioBERT and Medalpaca (domain specific LMs), suggesting that retrieval may be useful for improving domain-specific LMs.

Anton Alyakin, Jaden Stryker, Daniel Alexander Alber et al.

General-purpose vision-language models (VLMs) demonstrate impressive capabilities, but their opaque training on uncurated internet data posse critical limitations for high-stakes decision-making, such as in neurosurgery. We present CNS-Obsidian, a neurosurgical VLM trained on peer-reviewed neurosurgical literature, and demonstrate its clinical utility compared with GPT-4o in a real-world setting. We compiled 23,984 articles from Neurosurgery Publications journals, yielding 78,853 figures and captions. Using GPT-4o and Claude Sonnet-3.5, we converted these image-text pairs into 263,064 training samples across three formats: instruction fine-tuning, multiple-choice questions, and differential diagnosis. We trained CNS-Obsidian, a fine-tune of the 34-billion parameter LLaVA-Next model. In a blinded, randomized deployment trial at NYU Langone Health (Aug 30-Nov 30, 2024), neurosurgeons were assigned to use either CNS-Obsidian or GPT-4o as a diagnostic co-pilot after patient consultations. Primary outcomes were diagnostic helpfulness and accuracy. CNS-Obsidian matched GPT-4o on synthetic questions (76.13% vs 77.54%, p=0.235), but only achieved 46.81% accuracy on human-generated questions versus GPT-4o's 65.70% (p<10-15). In the randomized trial, 70 consultations were evaluated (32 CNS-Obsidian, 38 GPT-4o) from 959 total consults. CNS-Obsidian received positive ratings in 40.62% of cases versus 57.89% for GPT-4o (p=0.230). Both models included correct diagnosis in approximately 60% of cases (59.38% vs 65.79%, p=0.626). Domain-specific VLMs trained on curated scientific literature can approach frontier model performance in specialized medical domains despite being orders of magnitude smaller and less expensive to train. However, low clinical utilization suggests chatbot interfaces may not align with specialist workflows, indicating need for alternative AI integration strategies.

Krithik Vishwanath, Jaden Stryker, Anton Alyakin et al.

Language models (LMs) have demonstrated expert-level reasoning and recall abilities in medicine. However, computational costs and privacy concerns are mounting barriers to wide-scale implementation. To address these significant limitations, we introduce a parsimonious adaptation of phi-3-mini, MedMobile, a 3.8 billion parameter LM capable of running on a mobile device, for medical applications. We perform a careful set of pipeline additions and demonstrate that chain of thought, ensembling, and fine-tuning lead to the greatest performance gains, while unexpectedly retrieval augmented generation fails to demonstrate significant improvements. We evaluate the efficiency of our pipeline on the MultiMedQA and MedBullets. We demonstrate that MedMobile scores 75.7% on the MedQA (USMLE), surpassing the passing mark for licensed physicians (~60%) and rivaling scores of models 100 times its size. Across the entirety of the MultiMedQA, MedMobile achieves SOTA performance for models with less than 5B parameters and represents the smallest model to pass the MedQA (USMLE). MedMobile holds promise to democratize access to language models in medicine, bolstering lower compute needs and fast inference speeds. With the ability to combat the biggest barriers to entry for language models in medicine, we hope that MedMobile is a critical step forward in developing clinically relevant language models.