Conversation as Measurement in Clinical Encounters: Observable Phase Structure, Partially Observable Patient State

Many modern AI systems analyze conversational traces to infer aspects of human interaction and state, implicitly assuming that such information is recoverable from conversation. We study observability: whether a target is recoverable from conversational transcripts alone. Observability is difficult to assess because transcripts may provide only a partial view of many targets, and large-scale analysis requires model-based annotation, making true limits of the conversational signal hard to distinguish from annotator error. We therefore study clinical encounters, where patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide an external anchor for patient state, and visits follow broadly structured patterns. We study observability of patient state and conversational phase structure using 439 real-world clinical encounter transcripts spanning 134 hours, including 245 ENT transcripts paired with 273 PROM surveys. We operationalize patient state using PROM scores for voice, cough, and swallowing; phase structure using conversational phase segmentation. To make these analyses credible at scale, we use a PHI-compliant GPT-5 deployment for transcript annotation and conduct 40 hours of manual validation, reducing the risk that apparent limits of observability simply reflect annotator error. Our core finding is an observability asymmetry: phase structure is observable and useful for characterizing clinical encounter organization, while patient state is only partially observable, even in a setting designed to elicit patient symptoms and experiences, cautioning against transcript-only inference of human state.

Decide less, communicate more: On the construct validity of end-to-end fact-checking in medicine

Technological progress has led to concrete advancements in tasks that were regarded as challenging, such as automatic fact-checking. Interest in adopting these systems for public health and medicine has grown due to the high-stakes nature of medical decisions and challenges in critically appraising a vast and diverse medical literature. Evidence-based medicine connects to every individual, and yet the nature of it is highly technical, rendering the medical literacy of majority users inadequate to sufficiently navigate the domain. Such problems with medical communication ripens the ground for end-to-end fact-checking agents: check a claim against current medical literature and return with an evidence-backed verdict. And yet, such systems remain largely unused. To understand this, we present the first study examining how clinical experts verify real claims from social media by synthesizing medical evidence. In searching for this upper-bound, we reveal fundamental challenges in end-to-end fact-checking when applied to medicine: Difficulties connecting claims in the wild to scientific evidence in the form of clinical trials; ambiguities in underspecified claims mixed with mismatched intentions; and inherently subjective veracity labels. We argue that fact-checking should be approached and evaluated as an interactive communication problem, rather than an end-to-end process.

FactPICO: Factuality Evaluation for Plain Language Summarization of Medical Evidence

Plain language summarization with LLMs can be useful for improving textual accessibility of technical content. But how factual are these summaries in a high-stakes domain like medicine? This paper presents FactPICO, a factuality benchmark for plain language summarization of medical texts describing randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which are the basis of evidence-based medicine and can directly inform patient treatment. FactPICO consists of 345 plain language summaries of RCT abstracts generated from three LLMs (i.e., GPT-4, Llama-2, and Alpaca), with fine-grained evaluation and natural language rationales from experts. We assess the factuality of critical elements of RCTs in those summaries: Populations, Interventions, Comparators, Outcomes (PICO), as well as the reported findings concerning these. We also evaluate the correctness of the extra information (e.g., explanations) added by LLMs. Using FactPICO, we benchmark a range of existing factuality metrics, including the newly devised ones based on LLMs. We find that plain language summarization of medical evidence is still challenging, especially when balancing between simplicity and factuality, and that existing metrics correlate poorly with expert judgments on the instance level.