Generated Context versus Governed State: Functional Conditions for Accountable Longitudinal Clinical Reasoning

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.14804v1
• Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2026 18:18:31 GMT
• Title: Generated Context versus Governed State: Functional Conditions for Accountable Longitudinal Clinical Reasoning
• Abstract summary: This paper argues that longitudinal clinical reasoning is a state-estimation problem under partial observability.<n>We show that an operational definition of accountability decomposes into four information requirements.<n>A six-level maturity framework separates what a system makes governable from what it can compute.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) have become the dominant interface of clinical artificial intelligence, yet the interface they expose (text in, text out, one context window at a time) maintains no explicit, persistent, governed representation of what is currently true about a patient. This paper argues that longitudinal clinical reasoning is a state-estimation problem under partial observability, and that the axis on which clinical AI succeeds or fails is not the fluency of the model reading the record but the governance of the patient state it reasons over. We distinguish generated context from governed state; separate five objects that clinical AI habitually conflates (true state, observations, evidence, belief, and simulated state); define a tiered governance standard against which any clinical AI system can be audited; and show that an operational definition of accountability decomposes into four information requirements: an immutable evidence ledger with awareness-time versioning, a belief state distinct from accumulated evidence, an observation-process model, and claim-level causal typing. We are explicit that this decomposition is analytic rather than a necessity theorem, and that its value is conceptual hygiene: it converts "accountable clinical AI" from a slogan into an audit instrument. A six-level maturity framework separates what a system makes governable from what it can compute, locating current LLM-centric practice at high capability but low maturity. The paper is fully self-contained: the four research questions the framework poses are stated in the introduction, and the conclusion records what the paper establishes toward each; future work develops the buildable core of the architecture and the research program toward full Clinical World Models. No empirical result is claimed here.

Related papers

• Three Generations of Healthcare IT: From the Digital Record to the Computable Care Process [47.027290803102666]
  We describe a computational layer whose object is patient-specific clinical intent.<n>We formalize the Actionable Clinical Record as the atomic object of the third layer.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-09T16:44:28Z)
• What Does It Mean for a Medical AI System to Be Right? [0.0]
  The paper argues that correctness in medical AI is not a singular property reducible to benchmark performance.<n>The paper develops this argument through four themes: the instability of ground truth labels, the opacity of overconfident AI, the inadequacy of standard clinical metrics, and the risk of automation bias in time-pressured clinical settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-12T11:18:23Z)
• From Black-Box Confidence to Measurable Trust in Clinical AI: A Framework for Evidence, Supervision, and Staged Autonomy [0.0]
  Trust in clinical artificial intelligence (AI) cannot be reduced to model accuracy, fluency of generation, or overall positive user impression.<n>This article proposes a framework for trustworthy clinical AI built around three principles: evidence, supervision, and staged autonomy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-29T13:40:14Z)
• LLM Psychosis: A Theoretical and Diagnostic Framework for Reality-Boundary Failures in Large Language Models [0.0]
  The deployment of large language models (LLMs) as interactive agents has exposed a category of behavioral failure that prevailing terminology fails to adequately characterize.<n>This paper introduces LLM Psychosis as a structured theoretical framework for pathological breakdowns in model cognition that exhibit functional resemblance to psychotic disorders.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-07T09:44:15Z)
• Anatomy of a Lie: A Multi-Stage Diagnostic Framework for Tracing Hallucinations in Vision-Language Models [62.932580559941414]
  Vision-Language Models (VLMs) frequently "hallucinate" - generate plausible yet factually incorrect statements.<n>We propose a new paradigm for diagnosing hallucinations, recasting them from static output errors into dynamic pathologies of a model's computational cognition.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-16T17:20:38Z)
• Beyond Medical Chatbots: Meddollina and the Rise of Continuous Clinical Intelligence [0.0]
  We formalise Clinical Contextual Intelligence (CCI) as a capability class required for real-world clinical use.<n>We introduce Meddollina, a governance-first clinical intelligence system designed to constrain inference before language realisation.<n>We evaluate Meddollina using a behaviour-first regime across 16,412+ heterogeneous medical queries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-30T07:05:14Z)
• AgentsEval: Clinically Faithful Evaluation of Medical Imaging Reports via Multi-Agent Reasoning [73.50200033931148]
  We introduce AgentsEval, a multi-agent stream reasoning framework that emulates the collaborative diagnostic workflow of radiologists.<n>By dividing the evaluation process into interpretable steps including criteria definition, evidence extraction, alignment, and consistency scoring, AgentsEval provides explicit reasoning traces and structured clinical feedback.<n> Experimental results demonstrate that AgentsEval delivers clinically aligned, semantically faithful, and interpretable evaluations that remain robust under paraphrastic, semantic, and stylistic perturbations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-23T11:59:13Z)
• Benchmarking Egocentric Clinical Intent Understanding Capability for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [48.95516224614331]
  We introduce MedGaze-Bench, the first benchmark leveraging clinician gaze as a Cognitive Cursor to assess intent understanding across surgery, emergency simulation, and diagnostic interpretation.<n>Our benchmark addresses three fundamental challenges: visual homogeneity of anatomical structures, strict temporal-causal dependencies in clinical, and implicit adherence to safety protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T02:20:40Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• The Epistemic Suite: A Post-Foundational Diagnostic Methodology for Assessing AI Knowledge Claims [0.7233897166339268]
  This paper introduces the Epistemic Suite, a diagnostic methodology for surfacing the conditions under which AI outputs are produced and received.<n>Rather than determining truth or falsity, the Suite operates through twenty diagnostic lenses to reveal patterns such as confidence laundering, narrative compression, displaced authority, and temporal drift.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-20T00:29:38Z)
• A Controllable Examination for Long-Context Language Models [62.845852724511964]
  This study introduces $textbfLongBioBench, a benchmark for evaluating long-context language models.<n>We show that most models still exhibit deficiencies in semantic understanding and elementary reasoning over retrieved results.<n>Our further analysis indicates some design choices employed by existing synthetic benchmarks, such as contextual non-coherence.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-03T14:23:06Z)
• Medical Hallucinations in Foundation Models and Their Impact on Healthcare [71.15392179084428]
  Hallucinations in foundation models arise from autoregressive training objectives.<n>Top-performing models exceeded 97% accuracy when augmented with chain-of-thought prompting.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-26T02:30:44Z)

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.