Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Exploring the Inquiry-Diagnosis Relationship with Advanced Patient Simulators

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A patient simulator trained on real dialogue shows that inquiry quality caps AI diagnostic accuracy, no matter how strong the diagnostician.

desk verdict A promising patient simulator undermined by a confounded comparison and a downstream claim that may just reflect simulator-model compatibility. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.09484 v2 pith:EFT7O4SM submitted 2025-01-16 cs.CL

Zhaocheng Liu , Quan Tu , Wen Ye , Yu Xiao , Zhishou Zhang , Hengfu Cui , Yalun Zhu , Qiang Ju
show 2 more authors
Shizheng Li Jian Xie
This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.CL
keywords patientsimulatormedicaldialoguelargelanguagemodelsinquiry-diagnosisrelationshipLiebig'slawstrategyhallucinationrateanthropomorphism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that prompt-engineered patient agents fail to mimic real patients, and that a patient simulator trained on dialogue strategies extracted from real doctor-patient conversations behaves more realistically and hallucinate less. Using this simulator as a fixed patient, the authors test how well different large language models gather information and then diagnose, and they claim the two stages obey Liebig's law: the weaker of inquiry quality and diagnostic capability sets the ceiling on final accuracy. They also categorize doctors' questions into four types and show that differences in how models distribute their questions help explain why some models diagnose worse than others. If the claims hold, future online-consultation AI should be optimized for inquiry, not just diagnosis.

What carries the argument

The central object is the trained patient simulator, built by (1) annotating real doctor-patient dialogues with dialogue strategy tags, (2) manually curating high-quality strategy flows, (3) synthesizing doctor-patient dialogues from Chinese medical records and randomly sampled strategy flows, and (4) supervised fine-tuning Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct with LoRA on those dialogues. The simulator runs with only a system prompt containing the patient record, so it must learn to produce realistic patient turns — emotions, proactive questions, occasional refusal to answer — without being told the strategy tags at inference time. This fixed patient then plays the role of the controlled variable in the inquiry-diagnosis experiments.

What would settle it

Run a controlled rerun where AgentClinic and Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct receive the same patient medical record in their system prompts as the proposed simulator does; the training-paradigm claim predicts the simulator still beats them on hallucination rate and anthropomorphism by roughly the same margin. Separately, find any inquiry-diagnosis pair where a model with clearly poorer inquiry (as the paper defines it for Claude) yields higher accuracy than a better inquiry model under the same strong diagnostician, or where a weak diagnostician with excellent inquiries beats a strong diagnostician with poor inquiries — that would violate Liebig's law.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a patient simulator fine-tuned on synthesized dialogues — generated from real medical records and dialogue strategy flows tagged from authentic consultations — achieves a hallucination rate of 0.31% versus 3.71% for a prompt-engineered baseline, and an anthropomorphism score of 0.87 versus 0.31. The paper then uses this simulator as a fixed patient to generate inquiry records from several doctor models and diagnose them with several others, showing that models with poor inquiry consistently yield low accuracy even with the strongest diagnostic model, and models with weak diagnosis stay low even with good inquiries. The authors conclude that inquiry and diagnosis follow Liebig's law of the minimum: insufficient inquiry constrains diagnostic effectiveness regardless of diagnostic skill, and vice versa.

Load-bearing premise

The comparison that establishes the simulator's superiority gives the proposed model the patient's medical record in the system prompt while the baselines do not; if the baselines were also given that record, the hallucination and anthropomorphism gaps could shrink or disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Benchmarks that evaluate AI doctors through simulated consultations will be more trustworthy if the patient side can hold back information and act emotionally, rather than dumping all symptoms upfront.
  • Diagnostic accuracy in online consultations can be improved by training or selecting models specifically for the inquiry stage, since inquiry quality is an independent binding constraint.
  • Because model inquiry ability and diagnostic ability appear uncorrelated, a system that separates the questioning role from the diagnosing role could outperform a single generalist model.
  • The allocation of inquiry questions across chief complaints, symptom specification, accompanying symptoms, and history-taking within 3 to 5 rounds is a concrete optimization target for future medical AI.
  • The simulator itself can generate realistic synthetic doctor-patient dialogues at scale, which could serve as training data for other medical dialogue systems.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reported advantage of the simulator over baselines may depend on the fact that the simulator receives the patient's medical record in its system prompt while the baselines do not; a fair comparison would give the same record to the baselines before attributing the difference to the training paradigm.
  • The higher 'irrelevant response rate' of the simulator (4.79% versus 0.93%) may actually be a realistic feature rather than a flaw, since real patients sometimes refuse to answer; if so, benchmarks should stop treating irrelevance as strictly undesirable.
  • One testable extension is to use the simulator as a training environment for doctor models, where the doctor must learn to ask the right mix of questions — a direct test of whether the four-type inquiry distribution can be shaped by reinforcement learning.
  • The Liebig's-law claim suggests a measurable benchmark property: for a fixed set of patient records, diagnostic accuracy should be approximately the minimum of an inquiry-quality score and a diagnostic-capability score; this could be checked on new models without running a full dialogue study.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper introduces a patient simulator for online medical consultations, trained by supervised fine-tuning on synthetic doctor-patient dialogues produced from real dialogue strategy flows extracted from MedDialog and from CCKS 2019 Chinese medical records. The authors report that their simulator has a lower hallucination rate and higher anthropomorphism than prompt-engineered baselines, then use the simulator in multi-round interactions with three inquiry models and five diagnostic models to study how inquiry quality affects diagnostic accuracy. They conclude that inquiry and diagnosis obey Liebig's law, i.e., each can be a binding constraint on final accuracy, and they propose a four-type taxonomy of physician inquiries to explain cross-model differences in inquiry behavior.

Significance. The topic is timely: most medical LLM evaluations focus on diagnosis with complete information and neglect the inquiry stage, and the paper proposes a concrete alternative to prompt-engineered patient agents. The authors release the LoRA weights, ground the training in real dialogue strategies from MedDialog, and offer a simple four-type inquiry taxonomy that could inform future interactive clinical benchmarks. These are genuine assets for the community. However, the headline simulator gains and the law-like inquiry-diagnosis conclusion currently rest on a confounded baseline comparison and on averages without variance estimates, and the cross-model inquiry ranking may reflect simulator compatibility rather than general inquiry ability. The significance is therefore conditional on addressing these evaluation gaps.

major comments (5)
  1. [§2.2, Table 1, Appendix C] The simulator evaluation is confounded by information access. The proposed model is given the full patient medical record in its system prompt (Figure 7), whereas the AgentClinic and Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct baselines use only a core system prompt without the record. The authors themselves state in §2.2 that the improvement 'largely stems from incorporating patient medical records into the system prompt during training.' As a result, the reported hallucination-rate reduction (0.31% vs. 3.71%) and anthropomorphism advantage (0.87 vs. 0.31) do not isolate the contribution of the training paradigm; they could reflect the baselines' lack of access to the ground-truth patient record. Please add ablations in which the baselines receive the same medical record (or an equivalent scenario description) and re-report the three metrics.
  2. [§3.2, Figure 3] All claims of 'significant differences' in inquiry capability and of diagnosis ceilings rest on only three runs with the average reported; no error bars, standard deviations, or significance tests are provided. For instance, at five inquiry rounds under o1-preview, the three inquiry models achieve accuracies of 0.439, 0.481, and 0.500; gaps of 0.019 to 0.061 accuracy points could easily be within sampling noise, especially with only three trials. Please report per-run values, confidence intervals, and an appropriate significance test, or temper the 'significant differences' language throughout §3.2.
  3. [§3.2, §4.2] The Liebig's law conclusion is not demonstrated as a minimum-factor law. The experiments show main effects — more inquiry rounds generally improve accuracy, and stronger diagnosticians generally achieve higher accuracy — but they never test the predicted interaction, such as whether the benefit of a stronger diagnostician is smaller when inquiry quality is low (or vice versa). Moreover, inquiry quality is operationally defined by the very downstream diagnostic accuracy it is said to limit, so the statement that 'poor inquiry constrains accuracy' is close to a restatement of the ranking used to define inquiry quality. The four-type distribution analysis in §4.2 is independent evidence, but it is based on GPT-4o annotation with no reported annotation agreement. Please either define inquiry quality with an independent measure (e.g., information gain or coverage of required history items) or explicitly reframe the conclusion as an observed correlation between inquiry behavior and downstream accuracy rather than as a law.
  4. [§2.1, §3.1] The patient simulator is trained exclusively on synthetic doctor-patient dialogues generated by GPT-4o through in-context learning (Figure 2), and the only doctor turns it has seen are GPT-4o-style turns. Section 3.1 then pairs this simulator with Claude-3-5-sonnet as an inquiry model. Because the paper itself documents that Claude asks questions with a different type distribution (Figure 5), the Claude interactions are likely off-distribution for the simulator, so the low diagnostic accuracy of Claude-generated records in Figure 3 may reflect simulator incompatibility rather than a generally poorer inquiry capability. Please add a control in which the same inquiry models interact with a different patient simulator, or with fixed real-patient responses, and check whether the ranking of inquiry models survives.
  5. [§3.1] The paper does not specify the language or format of the AgentClinic MedQA-Extend medical records used in the inquiry-diagnosis experiments, nor how they were adapted for a simulator that, per §2.1 and the Limitations section, was trained only on Chinese CCKS records and is limited to Chinese dialogues. If MedQA-Extend records are in English, the simulator is being applied out of its declared language scope and all accuracy numbers in Figure 3 would need re-evaluation. Please clarify the language, source, and preprocessing of these records, and confirm that the simulator's Chinese-only limitation does not apply to the experimental setup.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Table 1] The Anthropomorphism Score is defined in §2.2 as being 'on a scale from 0 to 1,' but Table 1 reports values of 28.00, 31.00, and 87.00. Please state explicitly whether these are percentages or values on a different scale, and make the table consistent with the definition.
  2. [Figure 3] The caption states that each experiment is conducted three times and the average is reported, but it does not say whether the three runs use the same patient records or resample records. Please clarify and, if possible, show per-run variability in the figure.
  3. [Appendix A] The patient dialogue strategy label 'Disagree' appears twice in the list. It should likely appear once.
  4. [References] The reference 'Herhert M Adler' contains a typo; the correct spelling is 'Herbert M. Adler.'
  5. [§2.1] The description of the SFT dataset (1000 multi-turn dialogues, 8:2 split) is brief; please clarify whether any held-out test dialogues were used in the §2.2 evaluation or whether the evaluation was performed on newly generated interactions, and report the number and source of the evaluation dialogues.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's derivation is empirical rather than definitional, and no central claim reduces to its own inputs by construction.

full rationale

The patient simulator is trained on synthetic dialogues produced by GPT-4o under strategy tags, and its evaluation uses GPT-4o as a judge with human consistency checks. This raises validity concerns such as judge-family bias, the medical-record-in-system-prompt advantage over baselines, and the possibility that the simulator favors GPT-4o-style doctor turns, but none of these are cases where a fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction or where a result is defined into existence. The inquiry-diagnosis experiments independently vary inquiry models and diagnostic models, and the 'Liebig's law' conclusion is presented as an empirical summary of the resulting accuracy matrix rather than as an equation that is identical to its inputs. The four-type inquiry distribution supplies an independent behavioral characterization of the models' inquiry styles. No load-bearing self-citation, imported uniqueness theorem, or ansatz smuggled in via citation is present. Under the required standard of exhibiting a specific reduction, no circular step can be identified.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on LLM-judged evaluations, a synthetic data pipeline, and the subjective selection of dialogue strategies; none of these are externally benchmarked, and the simulator's advantage is confounded by access to patient records in the prompt.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption GPT-4o annotations of dialogue strategies, evaluation metrics, and inquiry types are sufficiently accurate.
    Used throughout: strategy tag expansion (Sec 2.1), HR/IRR/AS scoring (Sec 2.2), inquiry type annotation (Sec 4.2), and diagnostic accuracy workflow (Appendix F). Human spot-checks show high agreement, but sample details are absent.
  • domain assumption MedDialog contains representative real patient behavior.
    The entire simulator is trained on strategy flows derived from this dataset (Sec 2.1).
  • domain assumption Synthesized dialogues preserve the realism of real consultations.
    Training data is entirely synthetic (in-context learning from records and strategy flows, Sec 2.1), with no validation that the synthesis matches real patient language beyond the reported metrics.
  • ad hoc to paper Liebig's law (a minimum-factor principle) applies to inquiry and diagnosis.
    The paper imports an ecological/agronomy metaphor and asserts the relationship follows it (Sec 3.2), without deriving a quantitative law or controlling for alternative explanations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exploring the Inquiry-Diagnosis Relationship with Advanced Patient Simulators." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EFT7O4SM

@misc{pith2026250109484,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exploring the Inquiry-Diagnosis Relationship with Advanced Patient Simulators},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EFT7O4SM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.09484}
}
read the original abstract

Recently, large language models have shown great potential to transform online medical consultation. Despite this, most research targets improving diagnostic accuracy with ample information, often overlooking the inquiry phase. Some studies try to evaluate or refine doctor models by using prompt-engineered patient agents. However, prompt engineering alone falls short in accurately simulating real patients. We need to explore new paradigms for patient simulation. Furthermore, the relationship between inquiry and diagnosis remains unexplored. This paper extracts dialogue strategies from real doctor-patient conversations to guide the training of a patient simulator. Our simulator shows higher anthropomorphism and lower hallucination rates, using dynamic dialogue strategies. This innovation offers a more accurate evaluation of diagnostic models and generates realistic synthetic data. We conduct extensive experiments on the relationship between inquiry and diagnosis, showing they adhere to Liebig's law: poor inquiry limits diagnosis effectiveness, regardless of diagnostic skill, and vice versa. The experiments also reveal substantial differences in inquiry performance among models. To delve into this phenomenon, the inquiry process is categorized into four distinct types. Analyzing the distribution of inquiries across these types helps explain the performance differences. The weights of our patient simulator are available https://github.com/PatientSimulator/PatientSimulator.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.09484 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Our patient simulator (right) is compared to the baseline simulator (prompt engineering with GPT-4o, left) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Prompts for synthesizing patient simulator [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Patients consistently use our patient simulator, and doctors initially employ different models to interact [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Examples of four types of inquiry with D [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: The comparison focuses on the distribution of four inquiry types across GPT-4o, GPT-4o-mini, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Example for a dialogue strategy flow. C System Prompt of Patient Simulator The detailed system prompt of our patient simulator is shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The system prompt of our patient simulator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Workflow for assessing diagnostic accuracy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Inquiry type annotation prompt. F Workflow for assessing diagnostic accuracy To address the variations in the output formats of different diagnostic models and calculate accurate diagnostic accuracy computation using LLMs, we designed a standardized workflow. This work…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Baichuan-M2: Scaling Medical Capability with Large Verifier System

    cs.LG 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Baichuan-M2, a 32B medical LLM trained with a patient simulator and a clinical rubric generator as RL verifiers, reports state-of-the-art HealthBench scores (60.1 overall, 34.7 hard), ahead of all open-source models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

41 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josh Achiam, Steven Adler, Sandhini Agarwal, Lama Ahmad, Ilge Akkaya, Florencia Leoni Aleman, Diogo Almeida, Janko Altenschmidt, Sam Altman, Shyamal Anadkat, et al. 2023. Gpt-4 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2303.08774

    arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Herhert M Adler. 1997. The history of the present illness as treatment: who's listening, and why does it matter? The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 10(1):28--35

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    Ibrahim Al-Mahdi, Kathleen Gray, and Reeva Lederman. 2015. Online medical consultation: A review of literature and practice. In Proceedings of the 8th Australasian workshop on health informatics and knowledge management, volume 164, pages 97--100. Australian Computer Society Sydney

    work page 2015

  4. [4]

    Anthropic. 2024. Claude 3.5 Sonnet. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-3-5-sonnet

    2024

  5. [5]

    L Bickley. 2012. Bates’ Guide to Physical Examination and History Taking. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins

    work page 2012

  6. [6]

    Junying Chen, Zhenyang Cai, Ke Ji, Xidong Wang, Wanlong Liu, Rongsheng Wang, Jianye Hou, and Benyou Wang. 2024. Huatuogpt-o1, towards medical complex reasoning with llms. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.18925

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Abhimanyu Dubey, Abhinav Jauhri, Abhinav Pandey, Abhishek Kadian, Ahmad Al-Dahle, Aiesha Letman, Akhil Mathur, Alan Schelten, Amy Yang, Angela Fan, et al. 2024. The llama 3 herd of models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.21783

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Xianpei Han, Zhichun Wang, Jiangtao Zhang, Qinghua Wen, Wenqi Li, Buzhou Tang, Qi Wang, Zhifan Feng, Yang Zhang, Yajuan Lu, et al. 2020. Overview of the ccks 2019 knowledge graph evaluation track: entity, relation, event and qa. arXiv preprint arXiv:2003.03875

    arXiv 2020

Show all 41 references
  1. [9]

    Dan Hendrycks, Collin Burns, Steven Basart, Andy Zou, Mantas Mazeika, Dawn Song, and Jacob Steinhardt. 2020. Measuring massive multitask language understanding. arXiv preprint arXiv:2009.03300

    2020 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Edward J Hu, Yelong Shen, Phillip Wallis, Zeyuan Allen-Zhu, Yuanzhi Li, Shean Wang, Lu Wang, and Weizhu Chen. 2021. Lora: Low-rank adaptation of large language models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.09685

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Albert Q Jiang, Alexandre Sablayrolles, Antoine Roux, Arthur Mensch, Blanche Savary, Chris Bamford, Devendra Singh Chaplot, Diego de las Casas, Emma Bou Hanna, Florian Bressand, et al. 2024. Mixtral of experts. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.04088

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Di Jin, Eileen Pan, Nassim Oufattole, Wei-Hung Weng, Hanyi Fang, and Peter Szolovits. 2021. What disease does this patient have? a large-scale open domain question answering dataset from medical exams. Applied Sciences, 11(14):6421

    2021

  5. [13]

    Qiao Jin, Bhuwan Dhingra, Zhengping Liu, William W Cohen, and Xinghua Lu. 2019. Pubmedqa: A dataset for biomedical research question answering. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.06146

    2019 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Shreya Johri, Jaehwan Jeong, Benjamin A Tran, Daniel I Schlessinger, Shannon Wongvibulsin, Zhuo Ran Cai, Roxana Daneshjou, and Pranav Rajpurkar. 2023. Guidelines for rigorous evaluation of clinical llms for conversational reasoning. medRxiv, pages 2023--09

    2023

  7. [15]

    Sabrina H Kessler. 2023. Online medical consultation services. The International Encyclopedia of Health Communication, pages 1--4

    2023

  8. [16]

    Junkai Li, Siyu Wang, Meng Zhang, Weitao Li, Yunghwei Lai, Xinhui Kang, Weizhi Ma, and Yang Liu. 2024 a . Agent hospital: A simulacrum of hospital with evolvable medical agents. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.02957

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Shuyue Stella Li, Vidhisha Balachandran, Shangbin Feng, Jonathan S Ilgen, Emma Pierson, Pang Wei Koh, and Yulia Tsvetkov. 2024 b . Mediq: Question-asking llms and a benchmark for reliable interactive clinical reasoning. In The Thirty-eighth Annual Conference on Neural Informat...

    2024

  10. [18]

    Aixin Liu, Bei Feng, Bing Xue, Bingxuan Wang, Bochao Wu, Chengda Lu, Chenggang Zhao, Chengqi Deng, Chenyu Zhang, Chong Ruan, et al. 2024 a . Deepseek-v3 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.19437

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Jie Liu, Wenxuan Wang, Zizhan Ma, Guolin Huang, Yihang SU, Kao-Jung Chang, Wenting Chen, Haoliang Li, Linlin Shen, and Michael Lyu. 2024 b . Medchain: Bridging the gap between llm agents and clinical practice through interactive sequential benchmarking. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.01605

    2024

  12. [20]

    Harsha Nori, Yin Tat Lee, Sheng Zhang, Dean Carignan, Richard Edgar, Nicolo Fusi, Nicholas King, Jonathan Larson, Yuanzhi Li, Weishung Liu, et al. 2023. Can generalist foundation models outcompete special-purpose tuning? case study in medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.16452

    2023 arXiv

  13. [21]

    OpenAI. 2024 a . GPT-4o system card. https://openai.com/index/gpt-4o-system-card/

    2024

  14. [22]

    OpenAI. 2024 b . Openai o1 system card. https://openai.com/index/openai-o1-system-card/

    2024

  15. [23]

    Ankit Pal, Logesh Kumar Umapathi, and Malaikannan Sankarasubbu. 2022. Medmcqa: A large-scale multi-subject multi-choice dataset for medical domain question answering. In Conference on health, inference, and learning, pages 248--260. PMLR

    2022

  16. [24]

    Huachuan Qiu and Zhenzhong Lan. 2024. Interactive agents: Simulating counselor-client psychological counseling via role-playing llm-to-llm interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.15787

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Khaled Saab, Tao Tu, Wei-Hung Weng, Ryutaro Tanno, David Stutz, Ellery Wulczyn, Fan Zhang, Tim Strother, Chunjong Park, Elahe Vedadi, et al. 2024. Capabilities of gemini models in medicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2404.18416

    2024 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Samuel Schmidgall, Rojin Ziaei, Carl Harris, Eduardo Reis, Jeffrey Jopling, and Michael Moor. 2024. Agentclinic: a multimodal agent benchmark to evaluate ai in simulated clinical environments. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.07960

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Karan Singhal, Shekoofeh Azizi, Tao Tu, S Sara Mahdavi, Jason Wei, Hyung Won Chung, Nathan Scales, Ajay Tanwani, Heather Cole-Lewis, Stephen Pfohl, et al. 2023. Large language models encode clinical knowledge. Nature, 620(7972):172--180

    2023

  20. [28]

    Karan Singhal, Tao Tu, Juraj Gottweis, Rory Sayres, Ellery Wulczyn, Mohamed Amin, Le Hou, Kevin Clark, Stephen R Pfohl, Heather Cole-Lewis, et al. 2025. Toward expert-level medical question answering with large language models. Nature Medicine, pages 1--8

    2025

  21. [29]

    Mark H Swartz. 2014. Textbook of physical diagnosis E-book: history and examination. Elsevier Health Sciences

    2014

  22. [30]

    Xiangru Tang, Anni Zou, Zhuosheng Zhang, Ziming Li, Yilun Zhao, Xingyao Zhang, Arman Cohan, and Mark Gerstein. 2023. Medagents: Large language models as collaborators for zero-shot medical reasoning. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.10537

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gemini Team, Rohan Anil, Sebastian Borgeaud, Jean-Baptiste Alayrac, Jiahui Yu, Radu Soricut, Johan Schalkwyk, Andrew M Dai, Anja Hauth, Katie Millican, et al. 2023. Gemini: a family of highly capable multimodal models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2312.11805

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Yuanhe Tian, Ruyi Gan, Yan Song, Jiaxing Zhang, and Yongdong Zhang. 2023. Chimed-gpt: A chinese medical large language model with full training regime and better alignment to human preferences. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.06025

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Armand Trousseau. 1873. Lectures on clinical medicine, volume 2. Lindsay & Blakiston

  26. [34]

    Tao Tu, Anil Palepu, Mike Schaekermann, Khaled Saab, Jan Freyberg, Ryutaro Tanno, Amy Wang, Brenna Li, Mohamed Amin, Nenad Tomasev, et al. 2024. Towards conversational diagnostic ai. arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.05654

    2024 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Jason Wei, Xuezhi Wang, Dale Schuurmans, Maarten Bosma, Fei Xia, Ed Chi, Quoc V Le, Denny Zhou, et al. 2022. Chain-of-thought prompting elicits reasoning in large language models. Advances in neural information processing systems, 35:24824--24837

    2022

  28. [36]

    Yunfei Xie, Juncheng Wu, Haoqin Tu, Siwei Yang, Bingchen Zhao, Yongshuo Zong, Qiao Jin, Cihang Xie, and Yuyin Zhou. 2024. A preliminary study of o1 in medicine: Are we closer to an ai doctor? arXiv preprint arXiv:2409.15277

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    An Yang, Baosong Yang, Beichen Zhang, Binyuan Hui, Bo Zheng, Bowen Yu, Chengyuan Li, Dayiheng Liu, Fei Huang, Haoran Wei, et al. 2024. Qwen2.5 technical report. arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.15115

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Guangtao Zeng, Wenmian Yang, Zeqian Ju, Yue Yang, Sicheng Wang, Ruisi Zhang, Meng Zhou, Jiaqi Zeng, Xiangyu Dong, Ruoyu Zhang, et al. 2020. Meddialog: Large-scale medical dialogue datasets. In Proceedings of the 2020 conference on empirical methods in natural language processi...

    2020

  31. [39]

    Kaiyan Zhang, Sihang Zeng, Ermo Hua, Ning Ding, Zhang-Ren Chen, Zhiyuan Ma, Haoxin Li, Ganqu Cui, Biqing Qi, Xuekai Zhu, et al. 2024. Ultramedical: Building specialized generalists in biomedicine. arXiv preprint arXiv:2406.03949

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    online" 'onlinestring :=

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter edition editor eid eprint eprinttype howpublished institution journal key month note number organization pages publisher school series title type volume year doi pubmed url lastchecked label extra.label sort.label short.list...

  33. [41]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION n.dashify 't := "" t empty not t #1 #1 substring "-" = t #1 #2 substring "--" = not "--" * t #2 global.max substring 't := t #1 #1 substring "-" = "-" * t #2 global.max substring 't := while if t #1 #1 substring * t #2 gl...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.