How Much Would a Clinician Edit This Draft? Evaluating LLM Alignment for Patient Message Response Drafting

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2601.11344v1
• Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2026 14:48:00 GMT
• Title: How Much Would a Clinician Edit This Draft? Evaluating LLM Alignment for Patient Message Response Drafting
• Authors: Parker Seegmiller, Joseph Gatto, Sarah E. Greer, Ganza Belise Isingizwe, Rohan Ray, Timothy E. Burdick, Sarah Masud Preum,
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in drafting responses to patient portal messages.<n>Their integration into clinical raises various concerns, including whether they would actually save clinicians time and effort.<n>We develop a novel taxonomy of thematic elements in clinician responses.
• Score: 6.187770921319374
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) show promise in drafting responses to patient portal messages, yet their integration into clinical workflows raises various concerns, including whether they would actually save clinicians time and effort in their portal workload. We investigate LLM alignment with individual clinicians through a comprehensive evaluation of the patient message response drafting task. We develop a novel taxonomy of thematic elements in clinician responses and propose a novel evaluation framework for assessing clinician editing load of LLM-drafted responses at both content and theme levels. We release an expert-annotated dataset and conduct large-scale evaluations of local and commercial LLMs using various adaptation techniques including thematic prompting, retrieval-augmented generation, supervised fine-tuning, and direct preference optimization. Our results reveal substantial epistemic uncertainty in aligning LLM drafts with clinician responses. While LLMs demonstrate capability in drafting certain thematic elements, they struggle with clinician-aligned generation in other themes, particularly question asking to elicit further information from patients. Theme-driven adaptation strategies yield improvements across most themes. Our findings underscore the necessity of adapting LLMs to individual clinician preferences to enable reliable and responsible use in patient-clinician communication workflows.

Related papers

• Enabling Doctor-Centric Medical AI with LLMs through Workflow-Aligned Tasks and Benchmarks [72.89088985703748]
  The rise of large language models (LLMs) has transformed healthcare by offering clinical guidance, yet their direct deployment to patients poses safety risks.<n>We propose repositioning LLMs as clinical assistants that collaborate with experienced physicians rather than interacting with patients directly.<n>We construct DoctorFLAN, a large-scale Chinese medical dataset comprising 92,000 Q&A instances across 22 clinical tasks and 27 specialties.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-13T06:18:27Z)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Demystifying Large Language Models for Medicine: A Primer [50.83806796466396]
  Large language models (LLMs) represent a transformative class of AI tools capable of revolutionizing various aspects of healthcare. This tutorial aims to equip healthcare professionals with the tools necessary to effectively integrate LLMs into clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-24T15:41:56Z)
• Mitigating Hallucinations of Large Language Models in Medical Information Extraction via Contrastive Decoding [92.32881381717594]
  We introduce ALternate Contrastive Decoding (ALCD) to solve hallucination issues in medical information extraction tasks. ALCD demonstrates significant improvements in resolving hallucination issues compared to conventional decoding methods.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-21T07:19:19Z)
• PALLM: Evaluating and Enhancing PALLiative Care Conversations with Large Language Models [10.258261180305439]
  Large language models (LLMs) offer a new approach to assessing complex communication metrics. LLMs offer the potential to advance the field through integration into passive sensing and just-in-time intervention systems. This study explores LLMs as evaluators of palliative care communication quality, leveraging their linguistic, in-context learning, and reasoning capabilities.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-23T16:39:12Z)
• An Active Inference Strategy for Prompting Reliable Responses from Large Language Models in Medical Practice [0.0]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are non-deterministic, may provide incorrect or harmful responses, and cannot be regulated to assure quality control. Our proposed framework refines LLM responses by restricting their primary knowledge base to domain-specific datasets containing validated medical information. We conducted a validation study where expert cognitive behaviour therapy for insomnia therapists evaluated responses from the LLM in a blind format.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-23T05:00:18Z)
• Large Language Models in the Clinic: A Comprehensive Benchmark [63.21278434331952]
  We build a benchmark ClinicBench to better understand large language models (LLMs) in the clinic. We first collect eleven existing datasets covering diverse clinical language generation, understanding, and reasoning tasks. We then construct six novel datasets and clinical tasks that are complex but common in real-world practice. We conduct an extensive evaluation of twenty-two LLMs under both zero-shot and few-shot settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-25T15:51:06Z)
• Towards Automatic Evaluation for LLMs' Clinical Capabilities: Metric, Data, and Algorithm [15.627870862369784]
  Large language models (LLMs) are gaining increasing interests to improve clinical efficiency for medical diagnosis. We propose an automatic evaluation paradigm tailored to assess the LLMs' capabilities in delivering clinical services.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-03-25T06:17:54Z)
• Adapted Large Language Models Can Outperform Medical Experts in Clinical Text Summarization [8.456700096020601]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown promise in natural language processing (NLP), but their effectiveness on a diverse range of clinical summarization tasks remains unproven. In this study, we apply adaptation methods to eight LLMs, spanning four distinct clinical summarization tasks. A clinical reader study with ten physicians evaluates summary, completeness, correctness, and conciseness; in a majority of cases, summaries from our best adapted LLMs are either equivalent (45%) or superior (36%) compared to summaries from medical experts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-09-14T05:15:01Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.