Clinician input steers frontier AI models toward both accurate and harmful decisions

Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinician workflows, yet evaluations rarely measure how clinician reasoning shapes model behavior during clinical interactions. We combined 61 New England Journal of Medicine Case Records with 92 real-world clinician-AI interactions to evaluate 21 reasoning LLM variants across 8 frontier models on differential diagnosis generation and next step recommendations under three conditions: reasoning alone, after expert clinician context, and after adversarial clinician context. LLM-clinician concordance increased substantially after clinician exposure, with simulations sharing >=3 differential diagnosis items rising from 65.8% to 93.5% and >=3 next step recommendations from 20.3% to 53.8%. Expert context significantly improved correct final diagnosis inclusion across all 21 models (mean +20.4 percentage points), reflecting both reasoning improvement and passive content echoing, while adversarial context caused significant diagnostic degradation in 14 models (mean -5.4 percentage points). Multi-turn disagreement probes revealed distinct model phenotypes ranging from highly conformist to dogmatic, with adversarial arguments remaining a persistent vulnerability even for otherwise resilient models. Inference-time scaling reduced harmful echoing of clinician-introduced recommendations across WHO-defined harm severity tiers (relative reductions: 62.7% mild, 57.9% moderate, 76.3% severe, 83.5% death-tier). In GPT-4o experiments, explicit clinician uncertainty signals improved diagnostic performance after adversarial context (final diagnosis inclusion 27% to 42%) and reduced alignment with incorrect arguments by 21%. These findings establish a foundation for evaluating clinician-AI collaboration, introducing interactive metrics and mitigation strategies essential for safety and robustness.

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.

MedAgentBench: Dataset for Benchmarking LLMs as Agents in Medical Applications

Recent large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated significant advancements, particularly in their ability to serve as agents thereby surpassing their traditional role as chatbots. These agents can leverage their planning and tool utilization capabilities to address tasks specified at a high level. However, a standardized dataset to benchmark the agent capabilities of LLMs in medical applications is currently lacking, making the evaluation of LLMs on complex tasks in interactive healthcare environments challenging. To address this gap, we introduce MedAgentBench, a broad evaluation suite designed to assess the agent capabilities of large language models within medical records contexts. MedAgentBench encompasses 100 patient-specific clinically-derived tasks from 10 categories written by human physicians, realistic profiles of 100 patients with over 700,000 data elements, a FHIR-compliant interactive environment, and an accompanying codebase. The environment uses the standard APIs and communication infrastructure used in modern EMR systems, so it can be easily migrated into live EMR systems. MedAgentBench presents an unsaturated agent-oriented benchmark that current state-of-the-art LLMs exhibit some ability to succeed at. The best model (GPT-4o) achieves a success rate of 72%. However, there is still substantial space for improvement to give the community a next direction to optimize. Furthermore, there is significant variation in performance across task categories. MedAgentBench establishes this and is publicly available at https://github.com/stanfordmlgroup/MedAgentBench , offering a valuable framework for model developers to track progress and drive continuous improvements in the agent capabilities of large language models within the medical domain.