When Cases Get Rare: A Retrieval Benchmark for Off-Guideline Clinical Question Answering

Across medical specialties, clinical practice is anchored in evidence-based guidelines that codify best studied diagnostic and treatment pathways. These pathways routinely fall short for the long tail of real-world care not covered by guidelines. Most medical large language models (LLMs), however, are trained to encode common, guideline-focused medical knowledge in their parameters. Current evaluations test models primarily on recalling and reasoning with this memorized content, often in multiple-choice settings. Given the fundamental importance of evidence-based reasoning in medicine, it is neither feasible nor reliable to depend on memorization in practice. To address this gap, we introduce OGCaReBench, a free-form retrieval-focused benchmark aimed at evaluating LLMs at answering clinical questions that require going beyond typical guidelines. Extracted from published medical case reports and validated by medical experts, OGCaReBench contains long-form clinical questions requiring free-text answers, providing a systematic framework for assessing open-ended medical reasoning in rare, case-based scenarios. Our experiments reveal that even the best-performing baseline (GPT-5.2) correctly answers only 56% of our benchmark with specialized models only reaching 42%. Augmenting models with retrieved medical articles improves this performance to up to 82% (using GPT-5.2) highlighting the importance of evidence-grounding for real-world medical reasoning tasks. This work thus establishes a foundation for benchmarking and advancing both general-purpose and medical LLMs to produce reliable answers in challenging clinical contexts.

Accepted with Minor Revisions: Value of AI-Assisted Scientific Writing

Large Language Models have seen expanding application across domains, yet their effectiveness as assistive tools for scientific writing -- an endeavor requiring precision, multimodal synthesis, and domain expertise -- remains insufficiently understood. We examine the potential of LLMs to support domain experts in scientific writing, with a focus on abstract composition. We design an incentivized randomized controlled trial with a hypothetical conference setup where participants with relevant expertise are split into an author and reviewer pool. Inspired by methods in behavioral science, our novel incentive structure encourages authors to edit the provided abstracts to an acceptable quality for a peer-reviewed submission. Our 2x2 between-subject design expands into two dimensions: the implicit source of the provided abstract and the disclosure of it. We find authors make most edits when editing human-written abstracts compared to AI-generated abstracts without source attribution, often guided by higher perceived readability in AI generation. Upon disclosure of source information, the volume of edits converges in both source treatments. Reviewer decisions remain unaffected by the source of the abstract, but bear a significant correlation with the number of edits made. Careful stylistic edits, especially in the case of AI-generated abstracts, in the presence of source information, improve the chance of acceptance. We find that AI-generated abstracts hold potential to reach comparable levels of acceptability to human-written ones with minimal revision, and that perceptions of AI authorship, rather than objective quality, drive much of the observed editing behavior. Our findings reverberate the significance of source disclosure in collaborative scientific writing.