Alice M. Matthews

Richard J. Young, Alice M. Matthews

Emergency department triage assigns patients an acuity score that determines treatment priority, and clinical evidence documents persistent gender disparities in human acuity assessment. As hospitals pilot large language models (LLMs) as triage decision support, a critical question is whether these models reproduce or mitigate known biases. We present EQUITRIAGE, a fairness audit of LLM-based ESI assignment evaluating five models (Gemini-3-Flash, Nemotron-3-Super, DeepSeek-V3.1, Mistral-Small-3.2, GPT-4.1-Nano) across 374,275 evaluations on 18,714 MIMIC-IV-ED vignettes under four prompt strategies. Of 9,368 originals, 9,346 are paired with a gender-swapped counterfactual. All five models produced flip rates above a pre-registered 5% threshold (9.9% to 43.8%). Two showed directional female undertriage (DeepSeek F/M 2.15:1, Gemini 1.34:1); two were near-parity; one had high sensitivity with weak male-direction asymmetry. DeepSeek's directional bias coexisted with a low outcome-linked calibration gap (0.013 against MIMIC-IV admission), a Chouldechova-style dissociation between within-group calibration and between-pair counterfactual invariance. Demographic blinding reduced Gemini's flip rate to 0.5%; an age-preserving blind variant left DeepSeek with residual F/M 1.25, implicating age as a residual channel. Chain-of-thought prompting degraded accuracy for all five models. A two-model ablation reveals opposite underlying mechanisms for the same directional phenotype: in Gemini the signal is emergent in the combined name+gender swap, while in DeepSeek the gender token alone carries it. EQUITRIAGE shows that group parity, counterfactual invariance, and gender calibration are distinct fairness properties, that intervention effectiveness is model-dependent, and that per-model counterfactual auditing should precede clinical deployment.

Richard J. Young, Alice M. Matthews

Biomedical text embeddings have primarily been developed using research literature from PubMed, yet clinical cardiology practice relies heavily on procedural knowledge and specialized terminology found in comprehensive textbooks rather than research abstracts. This research practice gap limits the effectiveness of existing embedding models for clinical applications incardiology. This study trained CardioEmbed, a domain-specialized embedding model based on Qwen3-Embedding-8B, using contrastive learning on a curated corpus of seven comprehensive cardiology textbooks totaling approximately 150,000 sentences after deduplication. The model employs InfoNCE loss with in-batch negatives and achieves 99.60% retrieval accuracy on cardiac-specific semantic retrieval tasks, a +15.94 percentage point improvement over MedTE, the current state-of-the-art medical embedding model. On MTEB medical benchmarks, the model obtained BIOSSES 0.77 Spearman and SciFact 0.61 NDCG@10, indicating competitive performance on related biomedical domains. Domain-specialized training on comprehensive clinical textbooks yields near-perfect cardiology retrieval (99.60% Acc@1), improving over MedTE by +15.94 percentage points.

Richard J. Young, Alice M. Matthews

Domain-specific text embeddings are critical for clinical natural language processing, yet systematic comparisons across model architectures remain limited. This study evaluates ten transformer-based embedding models adapted for cardiology through Low-Rank Adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning on 106,535 cardiology text pairs derived from authoritative medical textbooks. Results demonstrate that encoder-only architectures, particularly BioLinkBERT, achieve superior domain-specific performance (separation score: 0.510) compared to larger decoder-based models, while requiring significantly fewer computational resources. The findings challenge the assumption that larger language models necessarily produce better domain-specific embeddings and provide practical guidance for clinical NLP system development. All models, training code, and evaluation datasets are publicly available to support reproducible research in medical informatics.

Richard J. Young, Brandon Gillins, Alice M. Matthews

Despite widespread deployment of Large Language Models, systematic evaluation of instruction-following capabilities remains challenging. While comprehensive benchmarks exist, focused assessments that quickly diagnose specific instruction adherence patterns are valuable. As newer models may be trained on existing benchmarks, novel evaluation approaches are needed to assess genuine capabilities rather than memorized performance. This paper presents a streamlined evaluation framework using twenty carefully designed prompts to assess LLM instruction-following across diverse task categories. We demonstrate this framework through a large-scale empirical study conducted on October 14, 2025, testing 256 verified working models from 331 available via OpenRouter. To ensure methodological rigor and prevent selection bias, we first verified each model's basic functionality before inclusion. Unlike large-scale benchmarks requiring extensive computational resources, our approach offers a practical diagnostic tool researchers and practitioners can readily apply. Our methodology builds upon verifiable instructions while introducing a compact test suite balancing comprehensiveness with efficiency. Each prompt targets distinct aspects of instruction following, including format compliance, content constraints, logical sequencing, and multi-step task execution. We evaluate models from major providers (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta, Mistral) and emerging implementations (Qwen, DeepSeek, community models), providing comparative performance analysis. Our findings reveal consistent failure modes and identify specific instruction types posing particular challenges. This work contributes both a practical evaluation tool and one of the most comprehensive empirical analyses of instruction-following capabilities across the contemporary LLM landscape.