Retrieval-Augmented Guardrails for AI-Drafted Patient-Portal Messages: Error Taxonomy Construction and Large-Scale Evaluation

Asynchronous patient-clinician messaging via EHR portals is a growing source of clinician workload, prompting interest in large language models (LLMs) to assist with draft responses. However, LLM outputs may contain clinical inaccuracies, omissions, or tone mismatches, making robust evaluation essential. Our contributions are threefold: (1) we introduce a clinically grounded error ontology comprising 5 domains and 59 granular error codes, developed through inductive coding and expert adjudication; (2) we develop a retrieval-augmented evaluation pipeline (RAEC) that leverages semantically similar historical message-response pairs to improve judgment quality; and (3) we provide a two-stage prompting architecture using DSPy to enable scalable, interpretable, and hierarchical error detection. Our approach assesses the quality of drafts both in isolation and with reference to similar past message-response pairs retrieved from institutional archives. Using a two-stage DSPy pipeline, we compared baseline and reference-enhanced evaluations on over 1,500 patient messages. Retrieval context improved error identification in domains such as clinical completeness and workflow appropriateness. Human validation on 100 messages demonstrated superior agreement (concordance = 50% vs. 33%) and performance (F1 = 0.500 vs. 0.256) of context-enhanced labels vs. baseline, supporting the use of our RAEC pipeline as AI guardrails for patient messaging.

MedHELM: Holistic Evaluation of Large Language Models for Medical Tasks

While large language models (LLMs) achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing exams, these evaluations inadequately reflect the complexity and diversity of real-world clinical practice. We introduce MedHELM, an extensible evaluation framework for assessing LLM performance for medical tasks with three key contributions. First, a clinician-validated taxonomy spanning 5 categories, 22 subcategories, and 121 tasks developed with 29 clinicians. Second, a comprehensive benchmark suite comprising 35 benchmarks (17 existing, 18 newly formulated) providing complete coverage of all categories and subcategories in the taxonomy. Third, a systematic comparison of LLMs with improved evaluation methods (using an LLM-jury) and a cost-performance analysis. Evaluation of 9 frontier LLMs, using the 35 benchmarks, revealed significant performance variation. Advanced reasoning models (DeepSeek R1: 66% win-rate; o3-mini: 64% win-rate) demonstrated superior performance, though Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable results at 40% lower estimated computational cost. On a normalized accuracy scale (0-1), most models performed strongly in Clinical Note Generation (0.73-0.85) and Patient Communication & Education (0.78-0.83), moderately in Medical Research Assistance (0.65-0.75), and generally lower in Clinical Decision Support (0.56-0.72) and Administration & Workflow (0.53-0.63). Our LLM-jury evaluation method achieved good agreement with clinician ratings (ICC = 0.47), surpassing both average clinician-clinician agreement (ICC = 0.43) and automated baselines including ROUGE-L (0.36) and BERTScore-F1 (0.44). Claude 3.5 Sonnet achieved comparable performance to top models at lower estimated cost. These findings highlight the importance of real-world, task-specific evaluation for medical use of LLMs and provides an open source framework to enable this.