探索全球前沿学术脉络

Beyond Classification: A Cough Regression Benchmark for Respiratory Acoustic Foundation Models

arXiv:2606.15436v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Respiratory acoustic foundation models (FMs) excel at cough classification, yet their ability to predict continuous health quantities from cough audio remains largely unexplored, despite the clinical value of passive age, BMI, and disease probability estimation in settings where physical measurements are unavailable. We introduce the multi-model, multi-target cough regression benchmark evaluating five FMs (OPERA-CT, OPERA-CE, OPERA-GT, HeAR, M2D+Resp) across six targets on three datasets under subject-disjoint protocols, comparing linear, MLP-small, and full MLP regression heads. MLP-small beats the mean-predictor baseline on all tasks and linear probing in 23 of 30 model x task cases, with full MLP overfitting on small clinical data but recovering on larger sets, revealing a dataset size x head-capacity trade-off. HeAR leads within-dataset age regression on Coswara (9.12 yr MAE); its CIDRZ result is excluded from headline claims owing to possible HeAR-CIDRZ pretraining overlap. OPERA-GT is favored over OPERA-CT on age in all three datasets, with the CIDRZ margin within seed variance, extending a generative-pretraining advantage from breath to cough. HeAR and M2D+Resp reach near-full performance at N = 50 samples while OPERA models require N = 400. Cross-dataset transfer is strongly asymmetric as large diverse data generalises to small clinical populations (CoughVID to CIDRZ: -0.17 yr) but not vice versa (CIDRZ to Coswara: +2.43 yr, +26.6%).

CareTransition-Audit: A Benchmark to Audit Discharge Summaries for Efficient Care Transitions

arXiv:2604.05435v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Incomplete or inconsistent discharge documentation drives care fragmentation and avoidable readmissions. Despite its critical role in patient safety, auditing discharge summaries relies on manual review and does not scale. We propose an automated framework for auditing discharge summaries using large language models (LLMs). Our approach operationalizes the DISCHARGED framework into a checklist of 46 questions. Using 50 summaries from the MIMIC-IV database, with clinician ground-truth labels, we benchmark 11 LLMs. Model-assessed mean documentation completeness ranges from 54.9% to 74.2%, and the best-performing models achieve a Cohen's kappa values around 0.5 against clinician labels, indicating moderate agreement. All models struggle to identify ambiguous documentation (Unclear), highlighting a key gap in current automated auditing. This work provides a clinician-validated benchmark and zero-shot baselines for systematic quality improvement in clinical documentation.

LLM Doesn't Know What It Doesn't Know: Detecting Epistemic Blind Spots via Cross-Model Attribution Divergence on Clinical Tabular Data

arXiv:2606.19509v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to structured clinical data, yet whether they can recognize the limits of their own knowledge on such tasks remains unexplored. We study this question through the lens of cross-model attribution divergence with the goal of reducing epistemic uncertainty for structured tasks, comparing Qwen 2.5 7B and XGBoost on a prediction task via attribution divergence analysis. We report four findings. First, LLM verbalized confidence is epistemically vacuous, it outputs a near-constant (0.856-0.937) regardless of whether accuracy is 49% or 75.3%, tracking prompt format rather than prediction quality. Second, the LLM exhibits an inverse difficulty effect: accuracy drops to 64.8% when XGBoost is 99% correct, but matches XGBoost (73.8% vs. 73.1%) when it is moderately uncertain. Third, few-shot examples and SHAP-derived feature evidence are orthogonal, super-additive interventions: they reduce the Attribution Disagreement Score (ADS) from 1.54 to 0.38 and improve accuracy from 49% to 75.3% without training. Fourth, a cross-model calibrator that determined LLM reliability using attribution divergence signals reduces expected calibration error from 0.254 to 0.080, replacing uninformative verbalized confidence with patient-specific reliability estimates, without accessing model internals or requiring repeated inference. We frame these findings as a cold start problem for LLMs on structured data and outline a path toward genuine epistemic self-awareness.