跳到正文
研踪PaperTrail

论文库

检索计算机领域论文,按研究方向、作者或关键词筛选。

部分采集异常
正在读取账号与研究记录…

全站更新概况

+0新增论文
+0其中 AI 相关
+2已有论文修订
+100新增 AI 导读

arXiv 最近完成扫描:2026-11-15 04:40 · 全站最近入库:2026-11-14 15:09各信源进度 →

统计口径与数据新鲜度

统计 2026-11-14 05:29 — 2026-11-15 05:29(北京时间) · 点击数字查看对应简报;AI 相关包含在新增论文内。

最近完成检查:2026-11-15 04:40最近发现新增版本:2026-11-14 15:09库内论文最新更新时间:2026-11-13 02:59

每分钟刷新已保存的数据。空检查不代表采集异常;新收录可能包含历史论文。AI 导读按新增版本计数。

23,348 已收录论文19,580 AI 相关6,729 有修订112 HF 社区发现

浏览论文库

时间范围跟随排序:版本更新、本站收录或首次发表。最新收录可能包含历史论文。部分信源异常,查看状态 →

找到 2 篇论文 · 按版本更新时间排序上轮扫描起点 2026-11-15 04:38(北京时间)
版本更新 · v2arXiv:2605.18738

Do Language Models Share Your Doctor's Priorities? Measuring Values from Clinical Decisions

Payal Chandak, Victoria Alkin, David Wu, Maya Dagan, Taposh Dutta Roy, Maria Clara Saad Menezes, Ayush Noori, Nirali Somia 等 14 位作者

原文摘要

Clinical decisions often require weighing autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice. Reasonable physicians may prioritize these values differently, yet the values that language models bring to medical advice remain poorly characterized. We introduce ValuePrism, an instrument for measuring value priorities from clinical decisions. ValuePrism combines a benchmark of 50 clinical dilemmas, each reviewed by two physicians, with an attribution method that estimates relative value priorities from choices between medically reasonable recommendations. Each case presents a clinical vignette and two mutually exclusive recommendations designed so that choosing one necessarily promotes certain values at the expense of others. Applying the instrument to frontier language models and a US-based physician panel, we find that models frequently acknowledge values favoring both recommendations but make highly consistent decisions across repeated queries, even on cases that sharply divide physicians. The ValuePrism attribution method shows that both physicians and language models express differentiated value priorities. Collectively, model values exhibit substantial diversity and most tend to fall within the physician-panel reference range. Nevertheless, a single model deployed unchecked would amplify its particular values to patients at scale. ValuePrism provides a common basis for measuring and comparing the clinical value priorities expressed by language models and physicians. Data and code are available at https://github.com/payalchandak/value-prism.

cs.AI

版本更新 · v4arXiv:2512.01241Google DeepMind

First, do NOHARM: a medical safety benchmark and randomized study of physician and AI teaming on clinical consultations

David Wu, Fateme Nateghi Haredasht, Saloni Kumar Maharaj, Priyank Jain, Jessica Tran, Matthew Gwiazdon, Arjun Rustagi, Jenelle Jindal 等 57 位作者

原文摘要

Large language models (LLMs) and medical AI tools are routinely used by physicians and patients for medical advice, yet their clinical safety profiles remain poorly characterized. We present NOHARM (Numerous Options Harm Assessment for Risk in Medicine), a 1,100-task benchmark of primary care-to-specialist consultation cases to measure the frequency and severity of potentially harmful errors from LLM-generated medical consultation recommendations. NOHARM covers 10 specialties, with 12,747 expert annotations for 4,249 clinical management options. Across 20 notable LLMs and 4 widely used retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) clinical AI tools, direct application of recommendations carried potential for severe harm in up to 24.6% of cases, with errors of omission accounting for more than 80% of severe errors. Harm potential was not uniform across systems, with clinical AI tools outperforming generalist LLMs, and multi-agent AI teaming further improving performance in generalist models. In a randomized study of 101 U.S.-licensed generalist physicians, AI assistance improved physician performance compared to conventional resources. However, AI-assisted physicians frequently omitted valuable AI-generated recommendations and still scored lower than many AI systems alone. Had those recommendations been incorporated, combined human-AI responses would have outperformed both the human and AI system as used, suggesting complementary strengths and unrealized potential in human-AI teaming. Collectively, these results show that despite strong performance on medical knowledge benchmarks, widely used AI tools can produce medical consultation advice with the potential for severe harm, and highlight the need for explicit measurement of clinical safety. The benchmark and leaderboard are publicly available to support ongoing evaluation and improvement of AI systems used for clinical care.

cs.CY · cs.AI