NeRD: Neuro-Symbolic Rule Distillation for Efficient Ontology-Grounded Chain-of-Thought in Medical Image Diagnosis

Interpretability is essential for trustworthy medical image diagnosis. However, existing concept-driven interpretable methods have key limitations: Concept Bottleneck Models (CBMs) require scoring all predefined concepts at inference time and for manual intervention, imposing a substantial burden on clinicians, while rationale-based generative approaches often select concepts by class discriminability, which can drift from diagnostic ontologies. To address these issues, we propose Neuro-Symbolic Rule Distillation (NeRD), a framework that produces efficient, ontology-grounded reasoning chains that are sufficient yet non-redundant, without manually crafting diagnostic rules. Experiments on two skin datasets demonstrate strong diagnostic performance and interpretability, and blinded expert evaluation confirms the clinical plausibility of NeRD rationales. Our method further enables a first expert-in-the-loop study for Multimodal Chain-of-Thought-based diagnosis, achieving efficient and effective concept-level intervention.

Do No Harm: Exposing Hidden Vulnerabilities of LLMs via Persona-based Client Simulation Attack in Psychological Counseling

The increasing use of large language models (LLMs) in mental healthcare raises safety concerns in high-stakes therapeutic interactions. A key challenge is distinguishing therapeutic empathy from maladaptive validation, where supportive responses may inadvertently reinforce harmful beliefs or behaviors in multi-turn conversations. This risk is largely overlooked by existing red-teaming frameworks, which focus mainly on generic harms or optimization-based attacks. To address this gap, we introduce Personality-based Client Simulation Attack (PCSA), the first red-teaming framework that simulates clients in psychological counseling through coherent, persona-driven client dialogues to expose vulnerabilities in psychological safety alignment. Experiments on seven general and mental health-specialized LLMs show that PCSA substantially outperforms four competitive baselines. Perplexity analysis and human inspection further indicate that PCSA generates more natural and realistic dialogues. Our results reveal that current LLMs remain vulnerable to domain-specific adversarial tactics, providing unauthorized medical advice, reinforcing delusions, and implicitly encouraging risky actions.

CHiRPE: A Step Towards Real-World Clinical NLP with Clinician-Oriented Model Explanations

The medical adoption of NLP tools requires interpretability by end users, yet traditional explainable AI (XAI) methods are misaligned with clinical reasoning and lack clinician input. We introduce CHiRPE (Clinical High-Risk Prediction with Explainability), an NLP pipeline that takes transcribed semi-structured clinical interviews to: (i) predict psychosis risk; and (ii) generate novel SHAP explanation formats co-developed with clinicians. Trained on 944 semi-structured interview transcripts across 24 international clinics of the AMP-SCZ study, the CHiRPE pipeline integrates symptom-domain mapping, LLM summarisation, and BERT classification. CHiRPE achieved over 90% accuracy across three BERT variants and outperformed baseline models. Explanation formats were evaluated by 28 clinical experts who indicated a strong preference for our novel concept-guided explanations, especially hybrid graph-and-text summary formats. CHiRPE demonstrates that clinically-guided model development produces both accurate and interpretable results. Our next step is focused on real-world testing across our 24 international sites.

PsychEthicsBench: Evaluating Large Language Models Against Australian Mental Health Ethics

The increasing integration of large language models (LLMs) into mental health applications necessitates robust frameworks for evaluating professional safety alignment. Current evaluative approaches primarily rely on refusal-based safety signals, which offer limited insight into the nuanced behaviors required in clinical practice. In mental health, clinically inadequate refusals can be perceived as unempathetic and discourage help-seeking. To address this gap, we move beyond refusal-centric metrics and introduce \texttt{PsychEthicsBench}, the first principle-grounded benchmark based on Australian psychology and psychiatry guidelines, designed to evaluate LLMs' ethical knowledge and behavioral responses through multiple-choice and open-ended tasks with fine-grained ethicality annotations. Empirical results across 14 models reveal that refusal rates are poor indicators of ethical behavior, revealing a significant divergence between safety triggers and clinical appropriateness. Notably, we find that domain-specific fine-tuning can degrade ethical robustness, as several specialized models underperform their base backbones in ethical alignment. PsychEthicsBench provides a foundation for systematic, jurisdiction-aware evaluation of LLMs in mental health, encouraging more responsible development in this domain.