medRxiv Daily Picks

[medRxiv] A preprint study conducted at Stanford Hospital reported that researchers silently deployed PharmaAgent, an LLM-based vancomycin dosing agentic system, for two months and compared high- and low-autonomy configurations, each with and without institutional guidelines. Across 403 dosing events in 316 patients, mean absolute percentage error against the treating pharmacist's order was 21.8% with high autonomy versus 37.8% with low autonomy, and recommendations were within 25% of the order in 73.4% versus 50.9% of events (P < 0.001), according to the study; a second pharmacist was within 25% of the treating pharmacist's order in 90.2% of events. Pharmacist review of 196 out-of-tolerance recommendations found a safety concern in 65.8%, more often with low autonomy (odds ratio 2.37). The authors said a higher-autonomy agent that self-debugged its steps proved more robust than stricter engineering, but that neither configuration is ready to dose patients without pharmacist oversight.

[medRxiv] A preprint study of abstracts from 12 general medical journals estimated that the prevalence of AI-generated text rose after 2022, with marked differences across journals in timing and magnitude. Researchers randomly sampled up to 200 abstracts per journal-year from publications dated Jan 1, 2020, through Aug 8, 2026, totaling 15,268 abstracts, and scored them with GPTZero using journal-specific thresholds calibrated to a 1% false-positive rate in the 2020-2021 pre-AI baseline. Through Aug 8, 2026, estimates ranged from 5.7% (95% CI, 2.1%-10.0%) in the New England Journal of Medicine to 83.5% (95% CI, 77.1%-87.5%) in Frontiers in Medicine; the publication-volume-weighted estimate across sampled journals was 66.7% (95% CI, 64.0%-69.2%). The authors said the proportion was lower in journals with higher impact factors and higher in fully open-access journals. These are unreviewed preprint findings.

[medRxiv] A multicenter cross-sectional study across hospitals in Kermanshah evaluated the MeDeep artificial intelligence platform among 88 medical professionals, including attending radiologists, radiology residents, internal medicine physicians and medical externs, according to the paper. The platform achieved a mean System Usability Scale score of 84.93, with no significant difference across professional subgroups (p=0.387), the authors said. However, overarching AI acceptance and algorithmic trust varied significantly by clinical role, with radiology residents showing significantly higher overarching AI acceptance (p=0.016) and algorithmic trust (p=0.008) than attending radiologists. Multivariate regression found user familiarity (Beta=0.500, p<0.001) and perceived system usability (Beta=0.236, p=0.012), rather than years of clinical experience, were the primary independent positive predictors of AI acceptance; higher perceived usability also directly predicted greater algorithmic trust (Beta=0.282, p=0.009). The authors said technical usability is a necessary baseline for diagnostic platforms, but professional trust dictates ultimate clinical adoption.

[medRxiv] A preprint study compared four machine learning and AI approaches for detecting dementia caregiver burden in de-identified caregiver-clinician transcripts, using Zarit burden scores as reference. According to the authors, Klein et al., in transcripts from the COPE in PACE study a naive baseline predicting burden in every transcript achieved precision/F1 of 0.40/0.57, LLM prompting 0.43/0.60 and weak supervision 0.48/0.58; a fully supervised model trained on sentence-level labels with only 1.1% burden-positive sentences reached precision/F1 of 0.19/0.25, a result the authors said is not directly comparable because of different labels and units of analysis. The authors said LLM prompting modestly outperformed weak supervision and the naive baseline without fine-tuning, while class imbalance limited fully supervised sentence-level classification, and that larger annotated corpora and refined labeling strategies are needed for clinical deployment.

[medRxiv] A decision-only model that returns structured probabilities rather than text can serve as a low-cost judge of medical AI answers, according to an OSF pre-registered evaluation of TypeSafe Jev 1.13. The study tested the model on tasks from five validated clinical benchmarks: HealthBench, When Rubrics Fail, MedVAL, CounselBench and Real-POCQi, covering 25,091 units and 213,913 model calls. According to the authors, Jev's agreement with expert labels averaged 64.7% over six tasks and 66.1% on 3,614 matched units, versus 65.0% for Opus and 60.7% for Sol, and it was non-inferior to both on four of six tasks. Jev judged the whole pool in 17 minutes for US$1.46, at 1/34 of Sol's per-judgment price and 1/152 of Opus's. Omissions remained hard: at the same false-alarm rate, Jev missed 55.6% of planted omissions and Opus 48.1%. The preprint has not been peer-reviewed.

[medRxiv] A preprint study proposed directional metrics — Positive Non-Agreement (PNA, AI correct and radiologist incorrect), Negative Non-Agreement (NNA, radiologist correct and AI incorrect) and Net Non-Agreement (NENA, their difference) — to quantify disagreement between AI platforms and radiologists against a common reference standard. According to authors El Kaddouri et al., applying the method to three previously published AI-radiologist studies on pulmonary embolism and mammography yielded NENA values ranging from -4.18% to +10.74%, decreasing with radiologist experience: +6.27% for junior residents and +1.45% for consultants, a gradient driven primarily by declining PNA with a modest increase in NNA. The authors also defined a reclassification fragility index measuring how many case reclassifications would remove statistical support for the direction of NENA; it was defined for six of seven comparisons, ranging from 0.34% to 4.31%, but not for the weakest comparison, whose confidence interval for NENA included zero. The findings have not been peer reviewed.

[medRxiv] A preprint study reports deep learning models that classify craniofacial CT slices into six anatomical categories. A total of 11,769 images were collected from a multicenter database involving 10 Japanese university hospitals and the public Head-Neck-Radiomics-HN1 dataset; patients were divided into 70% training and 30% evaluation sets. Five CNN architectures were trained from scratch, and hard- and soft-voting ensembles were evaluated. Individual-model accuracy ranged from 94.72% to 96.09%, and the hard-voting ensemble reached 96.46% accuracy (Cohen kappa = 0.954). According to the authors, performance differed among individual models (Cochran Q = 99.29, p < 0.001), but the ensemble did not significantly outperform EfficientNetV2B1 (McNemar p = 0.163); errors occurred mainly between adjacent anatomical regions. The authors said deep learning can classify craniofacial CT slices accurately and may support automated dataset organization and AI-assisted fracture diagnosis, adding that external validation is needed.

[medRxiv] Sandoval and colleagues developed MedMLX, a collection of 21 established medical imaging models rewritten for Apple Silicon in MLX, Apple's machine learning framework, to run locally rather than on NVIDIA GPUs, according to the medRxiv preprint. The collection includes nnU-Net, TotalSegmentator, MedSAM2 and SAM 3, and covers organ and tumor segmentation, lung nodule detection, synthetic image generation and radiology report drafting from CT, MRI, PET/CT, radiographs and endoscopic images. Using public cases from 11 imaging datasets, the authors compared results with the original software run on an Intel CPU and an NVIDIA GPU; MedMLX agreed in 211 of 212 comparisons, with the single exception a brain MRI segmentation where the original software itself gave different results on the two devices. On an Apple M1 Max with 64 GB of memory, a memory-saving setting kept 19 of the 21 models under 16 GB, cutting memory use by a median of 49% while raising processing time by a median of 13%. The authors said the toolkit enables on-device AI with established imaging models on Apple Silicon rather than specialized NVIDIA hardware.

[medRxiv] The PhenOM generative AI foundation model, trained and validated on longitudinal medical-event data from more than 400 million patient records in the OM1 Real World Data Cloud, can complete thousands of predictive tasks without additional training, according to a medRxiv preprint. The paper says the single model has been used to complete and validate predictive tasks covering more than 1,770 outcomes across most organ systems and clinical specialties. Overall, 80% of predictive tasks achieved an AUROC of at least 0.70 and 30% achieved at least 0.80, according to the authors. Performance was evaluated across four outcome categories: future risk, screening, care opportunity and treatment effect. All reported benchmarks were derived from data excluded from training. The authors say the findings support applications in individual and population health management, risk management, drug development and real-world evidence generation.

[medRxiv] A preprint study evaluated large language model generation of type 2 diabetes phenotyping SQL and the effect of database implementation context. According to the authors, eight publicly accessible LLM-based systems generated SQL under progressively richer prompts using synthetic and University of North Carolina (UNC) Health electronic health record data, both based on the OMOP model, and outputs were compared with the eMERGE T2DM reference phenotype on SQL executability, F1, positive predictive value and recall. Fewer than 55% of limited-context synthetic outputs and no limited-context UNC EHR outputs executed without modification, the authors said. Detailed codebooks (L3) raised executability to 81.3% in synthetic OMOP and 100% in UNC EHR, while adding sample rows (L4) raised synthetic executability to 100%. Limited-context recall was as low as 0.01, whereas high-context outputs achieved recall of at least 0.99 at synthetic L4 and above 0.90 at UNC L3, although UNC PPV remained substantially lower than recall. At the highest available context levels, Beta F1 ranged from 0.72 to 0.99 in synthetic OMOP and 0.57 to 0.68 in UNC EHR; all UNC models exceeded the diagnosis-code baseline (F1=0.54). The top synthetic performer fell from F1=0.99 to 0.64 on UNC EHR. The authors concluded that richer database context was associated with more consistent SQL executability and recall, while model rankings varied across datasets, and that limited PPV in real-world data underscores the need for local validation.

[medRxiv] Researchers developed and validated the infiltrative Tumor Burden (iTB) map, a deep learning biomarker that uses multiparametric MRI (mpMRI) to identify infiltrative tumor within non-enhancing FLAIR-hyperintense regions, according to a medRxiv preprint. The retrospective study analyzed preoperative mpMRI from 80 patients with WHO grade II-IV gliomas and 24 patients with brain metastases, using spatially localized stereotactic biopsies from non-enhancing glioma regions as histopathologic ground truth and peritumoral brain metastasis regions as non-tumor controls, and trained a 3D convolutional neural network. Model development included 121 biopsy-localized samples from 56 glioma patients and 104 non-tumor samples from 26 brain metastasis patients. According to the authors, augmentation optimization raised independent test-set accuracy from 74.5% to 85.5% and AUC from 0.859 to 0.942 (p = 0.008). Ensemble-derived iTB maps showed low infiltration probability in brain metastases and extensive elevated infiltration probability in glioblastoma. The authors said the biomarker may improve surgical planning, radiotherapy targeting and assessment of glioma burden.

[medRxiv] A preprint study reports that in an earlier experiment with errors inserted into three randomized clinical trial reports, untrained human reviewers achieved a mean major-error detection score of 27%, while 15 large language models, including four open-weight models, scored between 53% and 96%. To reduce the risk of memorization, the researchers repeated the test on three clinical trials published in 2026; scores ranged from 51% to 99%, and from 66% to 87% for the open-weight models. According to the study, the LLMs still flagged 2% to 29% of the error types in control reports without inserted errors, most often conclusions not supported by the results and missing reasons why screened patients were not enrolled. Mean review times across the 12 models ranged from 1.4 to 16.3 minutes. The study said Opus 5.5 achieved the highest major-error detection score at 99%, while GPT-6.1 Sol and GPT-6 Luna scored 92% and 87%, respectively. The authors said the tests provide a benchmark for specialized review models and suggest that relying on human peer review alone may leave avoidable methodological errors undetected.

[medRxiv] A preprint study introduced DiaBench, a standardized benchmarking framework for evaluating large language models in type 2 diabetes (T2D) patient education. According to the authors, the framework was built from 96 question-and-answer pairs collected by clinicians from representative real-world patient encounters; GPT-5 transformed each pair into multiple-choice questions under three configurations, and a five-member panel of certified diabetes care and education specialists, medical doctors and endocrinologists validated the transformations. Seven models were evaluated: GPT-5, Gemini-2.5-Flash, Cohere Command, Llama-4, DeepSeek-R1, Perplexity Sonar and Mistral-Large-2.0. The authors said expert validation for configuration 1 found 98.1% of rephrased answers appropriate and 98.1% of MCQ answers correct; under configurations 1 and 2 most models reached at least 95% accuracy, but Mistral-Large-2.0, Llama 4 and Perplexity Sonar showed lower self-consistency of 60.4% to 91.7%; all models degraded in accuracy and self-consistency on configuration 3. The authors said Gemini, GPT-5 and DeepSeek-R1 performed strongly. The findings are from an unreviewed preprint.

[medRxiv] A preprint study developed an iterative retrieval-augmented generation conversational framework to predict COVID-19 infection risk from textual descriptions of social interactions. According to the study, the team trained a long short-term memory (LSTM) model on 19,434 textual descriptions of social interactions collected during the pandemic in the Leuven student community in Belgium, and integrated it into a Llama3.3-based conversational framework that iteratively gathers additional social information that may represent infection risk. Based solely on social interaction data, a fine-tuned RobBERT model predicted infection risk with a ROC AUC of 0.73, similar to the LSTM model and a logistic regression on TF-IDF features, both at 0.72, and the three slightly outperformed a QLoRA-fine-tuned Mistral NeMo model at 0.69, according to the study. The study said Llama3.3 performed well in the framework, with predicted infection risk often converging and fewer redundant questions than the smaller Mistral 7B and Gemma3 12B models; the framework also stratified synthetic users with different types of social interactions by infection risk. The authors concluded that combining simple language models with large language models can refine individual infection risk from contact tracing data in a high-circulation context. The findings are from a preprint and have not been peer-reviewed.

[medRxiv] A preprint by Ingebretsen et al. reports the development and evaluation of an agentic AI pipeline that gives evidence-grounded, neighborhood-scale answers to lay persons' health-related environmental questions. Built with LangGraph and OpenAI large language models, the pipeline interprets natural-language queries, selects and invokes external tools, and integrates weather forecasts, air-quality observations, geospatial services and a retrieval-augmented generation module built from asthma-related clinical guidance, with fallback mechanisms when external services are unavailable. The authors evaluated it on a curated benchmark of representative user questions, assessing tool-needed recognition, correct tool selection, avoidance of irrelevant tools, parameter mapping, analytic pathway selection and incorporation of tool outputs. According to the authors, the system integrated heterogeneous environmental and health sources into a unified conversational interface for the Salt Lake Valley, with generally strong tool recognition, parameter mapping and incorporation of retrieved information; they said the modular architecture can accommodate additional data streams, health knowledge sources and regions. The work is a preprint and has not been peer reviewed.

[medRxiv] A preprint study by Li et al. describes PAHD (Physical Activity for Hypertension Database), a structured database of exercise interventions for hypertension built with large language models. According to the study, one LLM screened 2,548 PubMed records by title and abstract and then by full text, selecting 255 studies; LLMs extracted each study's groups, exercise protocols, patient characteristics and results, two LLMs cross-checked study structure, and every value carries a verbatim quote. Code standardized and joined the extractions into 17,312 records from 254 studies, one per reported comparison. Against adjudicated benchmarks, screening reached 86.3% recall and 80.6% precision, and extraction recovered 90.1% of blood pressure values with 90.5% precision, according to the study. A web portal matches patients' hypertension stage and comorbidities to studies. The preprint has not been peer-reviewed.

[medRxiv] A retrospective diagnostic accuracy study at two Tunisian centers found that a fine-tuned MedGemma 1.5 4B model given ultrasound images plus radiologists' structured descriptors (Config D) reached an AUROC of 0.953 (95% CI 0.909-0.976) on a test set of 256 thyroid nodules sealed before training, versus 0.948 (0.894-0.972) for expert EU-TIRADS, a difference of +0.004 (95% CI -0.016 to +0.025) that met the prespecified 0.05 non-inferiority margin, according to the preprint. Configurations without the qualitative descriptors reached 0.883-0.892 (Holm-adjusted p=0.045 versus EU-TIRADS). Against EU-TIRADS 4 or higher, which had 98.0% sensitivity and produced 94 false positives among 205 benign nodules, Config D reclassified 72 of those false positives as negative at a threshold fixed on validation data, at the cost of two additional missed cancers. The authors said the model is best positioned as a report-standardizing second reader in the EU-TIRADS 4 gray zone, pending prospective external validation.

[medRxiv] A cross-sectional audit of 33 drugs found that Russian, Arabic and Hebrew Wikipedia articles carried weaker drug-safety warnings than English articles, according to the authors. The study covered 24 risk-positive drugs (eight each for G6PD deficiency, teratogenicity and QT-interval prolongation) plus nine negative controls; three large language models coded each warning, and a hierarchical Bayesian cumulative-logit model used English as reference. The authors reported pooled cumulative odds ratios versus English of 0.41 for Russian, 0.25 for Arabic and 0.31 for Hebrew, with posterior probabilities of 78%, 87% and 87% that English warns more strongly, while the 95% credible intervals included 1. Eight of nine language-by-domain estimates were below 1, the exception being Russian QT. Exploratory analyses suggested the Russian gap mainly reflects missing or short articles, whereas Arabic articles less often escalated a mentioned risk to a directive. The authors said uncertainty was wide given a small purposive panel and model codes not yet validated against human coding.

[medRxiv] A medRxiv preprint reports that researchers fine-tuned the general-purpose decision models Kev-27B and Kev-9B on 36,109 records from public radiology datasets to produce RadKev-27B and RadKev-9B, then compared them with the Kev models, the hosted decision models Jev and OpenAI Decisions, and the LLM Qwen3.8-27B on 14,142 held-out questions across fifteen tasks. The prespecified primary outcome was task-averaged accuracy relative to Kev-27B. According to the authors, RadKev-27B exceeded Kev-27B by 4.9 percentage points (95% CI 3.8 to 6.2), with the largest gain in report error detection at 22.6 points; RadKev-9B exceeded Kev-9B by 6.9 points (5.5 to 8.4) and did not differ detectably from Kev-27B, a model three times its size. On 1,675 questions, RadKev-27B was more accurate than Jev (3.0 points, 1.7 to 4.4), OpenAI Decisions (4.8, 3.2 to 6.4), Qwen3.8-27B without reasoning (4.7, 3.4 to 6.0) and with reasoning (2.8 points, 1.0 to 4.6), at 132-fold lower latency (128 ms versus 16.9 s per question). At a 5% error rate, RadKev-27B could answer 90.5% of questions and Kev-27B 76.4%. The authors said the model can be deployed within an institution for categorical radiology decisions after validation on local data.

[medRxiv] A medRxiv preprint reports the development of EM-BENCH, a physician-validated, deterministically scored benchmark for assessing whether large language models reliably apply American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) guidelines to clinical decisions. The benchmark comprises 210 binary clinical vignettes covering all 70 critical questions across 25 ACEP clinical policies, and the study evaluated 149 LLM configurations representing 79 base models. According to the authors, no configuration achieved complete guideline concordance; the highest-performing configuration answered 207 of 210 vignettes correctly (98.6%). Closed-access models outperformed open-weight models (median accuracy 91% vs 63%; Hodges-Lehmann location shift 26 percentage points; 99% CI 20 to 33; adjusted P<0.001). Among open-weight model families, a 10-fold increase in parameter count was associated with a 14-percentage-point increase in accuracy (99% CI 7.7 to 20; adjusted P<0.001), and accuracy rose 8.9 percentage points per release year across all models (99% CI 3.6 to 14; adjusted P<0.001). Neither enabling a thinking mode nor higher reasoning effort consistently improved accuracy. The authors said contemporary LLMs showed improving but incomplete ability to apply ACEP guidelines.

Deutges, Ghete, Namsaraeva and colleagues propose the HemAutomaton framework based on neural cellular automata, which can extract white blood cells from whole-slide images of blood and bone marrow smears without the need for manual region selection and with minimal annotation requirements. The study reports that the framework is comparable to Faster R-CNN in in-domain detection accuracy, outperforms the latter under domain shift, and incurs only a small fraction of the latter's computational cost, with more than 10,000-fold fewer parameters. The authors extracted more than 100 million single-cell images across three blood cancer cohorts and, using a pretrained hematology foundation model, achieved annotation-efficient classification and counting through few-shot classification. Whole-slide spatial analysis revealed a consistent blast frequency gradient within smears, and the discrepancy between automated blast counts and expert assessment fell within the range of inter-expert variability. The authors state that scaling automated analysis from hundreds of cells per smear to tens of thousands of cells can overcome the limitations of traditional sampling.

The research team of Zhou, Wang, Xu et al. built an automated assessment pipeline based on OpenAI's GPT-5-mini model, tested its agreement with human consensus on 46 manually annotated Mendelian randomization (MR) papers, obtaining an agreement rate of 89.0%, and then applied the pipeline to more than 13,000 MR papers published between 2005 and 2025 to assess their adherence to the STROBE-MR reporting guideline. The study reports that, on average, 22 of 43 items (51.2%) met the full-compliance criterion, with marked differences in reporting rates across items and sections; the least-reported items were concentrated in the "Methods", "Results" and "Other information" sections; the number of reported items remained essentially stable over time, with a slight decline after 2021. Sensitivity analyses showed that the temporal trend patterns differed under the full-compliance and partial-compliance criteria, especially in the Methods, Discussion and Other information sections. The authors state that the results suggest the reporting quality of MR studies still needs improvement, and recommend further refinement of the STROBE-MR guideline.

Gravellier, Zhang, Wu et al. released a preprint study developing the open-source benchmark SeeFood, using 80 real meal photos from the SNAPMe dataset to evaluate 8 commercial and open-source multimodal large models, and re-evaluating three shortlisted models on the full dataset of 1,680 photos and 275 person-days. The paper reports that GPT-4o mini had the lowest error, with a significant advantage on carbohydrates; however, the mean absolute percentage error still ranged from 52% to 90%, with the direction of bias varying by model. The mean absolute error for carbohydrates was 13.3 g (95% confidence interval 12.4 to 14.3), and only 57% of meals fell within plus or minus 10 g, the clinically relevant threshold for insulin dosing in type 1 diabetes. Calorie error for lunch and dinner was about 55%, comparable to human estimates; only beverage images, due to dissolved sugar, had errors as high as 312%. The authors state that current models can extract meaningful dietary information, but errors in nutrition and portion estimation limit their use for precision diabetes management.

[medRxiv] Rodman, Lowe, Thomas et al. released a preprint study developing and preliminarily evaluating a patient version of the "Patient–Artificial Intelligence Rating" tool (PAIR), used to assess the quality of health-related conversations between patients and AI. The study conducted an anonymous online cross-sectional survey from June 5 to 14, 2026; 14 adults with experience using large language models to query personal health questions provided a total of 46 complete ratings; of these, 13 provided demographic information, with a median age of 63 years and 8 being women. The tool contains 12 communication quality and patient engagement items (scored 1 to 5) and a separately scored perceived harm item. The paper states that Cronbach α for all ratings was 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 0.93), 0.85 when only the first rating was used, and 0.92 when calculated as the mean per participant; the mean quality score was 4.43 (standard deviation 0.45). The intraclass correlation coefficient for the 9 participants who rated multiple times was 0.45, suggesting differences across conversations; of the 46 ratings, 44 (96%) reported no perceived harm. The authors state that the results support further evaluation of the patient-reported perspective, but the sample is small and validity and generalizability need to be verified in larger, more diverse populations…

A randomized study by Morquin, Bochu, Robert et al. randomly assigned 153 children discharged from a pediatric emergency department to either a conventional template group or a group drafted by a locally deployed open-source weight large language model, with both groups' documents reviewed by the discharging physician, and 117 cases were ultimately analyzed (59 in the conventional group and 58 in the model-assisted group). The paper states that the family version documents in the model-assisted group used more common vocabulary, but there was no difference in the primary outcome of parents' understanding of record consistency at follow-up (difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.12 to 0.10). In the clinician-facing handoff documents, no discrepancy was judged to be a serious consequence (0/117). In exploratory comparisons, physicians modified 48 of the 58 drafts, removing 18 of 22 unsupported additions, but corrected only 6 of 22 erroneous abbreviation expansions. The authors propose that documentation elements need to be clearly defined so that human oversight of clinical AI can be measurable (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07874659).

A retrospective single-center study included 60 contrast-enhanced T1-weighted brain MRIs (30 gliomas, 30 brain abscesses), with one axial slice taken per case and paired with five types of referral text, repeated 20 times each under three prompt instructions and submitted to GPT-4o, Claude Sonnet 5, Gemini 3.5 Flash and Qwen 3.6, yielding a total of 72,000 responses. The authors Beste, Bauer, Lopez and colleagues report that the text-driven span ranged from 0.79 to 1.00 (p<0.001 for all models), whereas the difference between confirmed glioma and abscess was only 0.01 to 0.10, and 0.25 for Gemini 3.5 Flash; under neutral text, the proportion of cases judged as tumor by the models ranged from 45% to 67%. The authors report that when instructed to ignore the text, the span for three models fell to 0.48 to 0.70, and for Gemini 3.5 Flash fell to 0.04, partly due to regression to a default tumor judgment. Model accuracy ranged from 0.52 to 0.73, while two blinded radiologist readers achieved 0.78 and 0.73.

Wang, Pichet Binette, Sainath et al. evaluated two recently released fMRI foundation models, BrainLM and BrainHarmonix, using data from PreventAD, a cohort of adults with a family history of Alzheimer's disease. The sample included 343 quality-controlled participants, 218 of whom underwent amyloid PET imaging. The study compared frozen and fine-tuned model features against two baselines—functional connectivity and a "majority class" dummy classifier—with prediction targets of sex, age, progression to mild cognitive impairment (MCI), and β-amyloid burden. The paper reports that both models required substantial modifications to their public code: BrainLM's built-in data preparation pipeline could not be reliably fine-tuned, and fine-tuning was achieved only after switching to the standard Nilearn pipeline; BrainHarmonix's documentation did not specify how to normalize new data. For sex prediction, functional connectivity outperformed all foundation model features; for age-group prediction, BrainHarmonix's structural encoder features were slightly higher than functional connectivity but not significantly so; for MCI and β-amyloid prediction, no feature exceeded the dummy classifier in accuracy, with AUC close to chance…

Chen, Duan, Gou and others proposed a machine-learning system for predicting whether Phase I to Phase IV clinical trials will hit their primary endpoints, modeling efficacy endpoints separately from safety/toxicity endpoints. The authors say the models were trained only on features available at registration, including target and mechanism-of-action precedents, drug modality and novelty, trial design and operational features, and frozen literature-derived target-selection embeddings, to avoid look-ahead bias and outcome leakage. Each prediction outputs a continuous Pre-Trial Index (PTI) between 0 and 1. On a test set of trials launched in 2021 and later, the efficacy model had an AUROC of 0.828 (95% CI 0.812-0.845; n=2,347), and the safety/toxicity model 0.809 (95% CI 0.787-0.831; n=1,485). The authors say the models have been embedded in the inClinico Agent, and they launched ClinBench, a prospective benchmark covering 3,311 ongoing trials.

Rui, Ma, Stepanov et al. published a retrospective cohort study evaluating the reliability of a multi-large language model (LLM) consensus workflow for automatically determining outcome labels from radiology reports. The study included 6,718 brain MRI reports from 5,856 patients; the expert-adjudicated reference set contained 680 reports, of which 372 were normal, 90 had white matter hyperintensity only, and 218 were abnormal. The paper states that when Qwen3, Kimi-Linear, and GPT-5 (or DeepSeek-R1 in the open-source combination) were all required to agree before assigning a normal or abnormal label, with all other cases referred for manual review, both ensembles achieved 100% precision in automatic classification on the reference set; the strongest single model, GPT-5, achieved normal and abnormal precision of 98.9% and 94.1%, respectively, with 17 cases discordant with expert labels, whereas the ensembles had none. In the full cohort, among reports classified by the proprietary-model ensemble as normal, indeterminate, and abnormal, 1.6%, 29.7%, and 51.3%, respectively, were accompanied by central nervous system-related ICD-10 diagnoses; the corresponding figures for the open-source ensemble were 1.6%, 31.1%, and 51.6%. The authors state that this strategy can reduce the burden of manual adjudication.

Omar, Ramaswamy, Sakhuja and other researchers tested two decision-focused medical AIs, Jev and OpenAI Decisions, and the large language model GPT-6 Luna across 2,134 case presentations and 2,483,222 model calls. The paper says that when labels or pressure prompts were added without changing the clinical findings, the decision models changed 13.4 more decisions per 100 decisions than under neutral wording, versus 14.0 for the language model; after pairing the decision model with the language model, this figure fell to 2.6, a reduction of about 81% on the development set and 42% to 48% on the held-out reports. Triage accuracy remained around 81% to 82%. The authors say the pairing pipeline costs at most $0.77 per 1,000 records and describe it as a practical proof of concept for reducing framing sensitivity and flagging text that needs review.

Authors Li, Zhou, Yeh and others reported on medRxiv an evidence-aware framework for integrating pharmacovigilance data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), biomedical literature, clinical trials, and Mass General Brigham electronic health records. The framework combines large language model information extraction, ontology-driven semantic normalization, cross-source evidence assessment, statistical and machine learning ranking, and component-based adverse drug event relation inference. The study states that the constructed knowledge system contains 11,588 drug nodes, 44,843 component nodes, 3,275 adverse event nodes, 993 indication nodes, and more than 2.47 million relations, with each drug-adverse event relation assigned a confidence score. The authors state that, after incorporating this knowledge resource, the comprehensiveness, relevance, and overall quality of large language model drug-specific adverse event synthesis improved, and the precision and F1 score of clinical adverse event relation extraction also increased.

[medRxiv] Chu, Wu, McCormick et al. conducted a benchmark study on 4,999 verbal autopsy records of decedents aged 12 and older from a nationally registered death sample in South Africa, using physician-assigned cause of death as the reference. The paper states that all supervised pipelines improved top cause-of-death accuracy by 8.5 to 15.9 percentage points over the current automated method InSilicoVA, and improved cause-specific mortality fraction score accuracy by 3.5 to 7.1 percentage points. A pretrained language model using only narrative text and a machine learning model using only the structured questionnaire performed similarly overall, but the narrative model was more accurate for non-communicable causes of death, while the questionnaire model was more accurate for communicable causes of death. The decision-fusion pipeline further increased top-cause accuracy by 4.2 to 5.4 percentage points, and feature fusion also improved macro-F1 and balanced accuracy, with cause-specific mortality fraction score accuracy reaching 95.7%. Zero-shot large language models performed notably well on rare causes of death. The authors state that the results support incorporating narrative text into automated verbal autopsy systems.