Daniel Zhang
Publications
CliniCARE-Bench: Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR
Large language models perform strongly on medical knowledge benchmarks, but reliable clinical deployment requires agents to conduct defensible investigations over heterogeneous, longitudinal records: determining what evidence is needed, retrieving and reconciling structured and free-text data, grounding conclusions in verifiable evidence, and deferring cases that cannot be resolved reliably. We introduce CliniCARE-Bench (Clinical Calibrated Audit of Medical Reasoning in EHR), a benchmark for retrospective clinical audit: 25 clinician-validated scenarios instantiated as 750 patient-specific cases over real-patient-derived MIMIC-IV data. Systems investigate each case through a governed, logged tool environment for record retrieval, computation, and policy access, and return one of four verdicts---Yes, No, Indeterminate: Lack of Data, or Indeterminate: Medically Ambiguous---the last two separating missing evidence from residual medical ambiguity. Beyond verdict accuracy, we score patient-evidence and policy grounding, process adherence, calibrated abstention, reliability, and efficiency against case-level reference verdicts produced by independent multi-model adjudication and calibrated against Clinical Board review. Every retrieval, computation, and report is replayable, so the investigation trace is inspectable and scorable. To our knowledge, CliniCARE-Bench is the first deployment-oriented clinical-agent benchmark to jointly evaluate real longitudinal EHR investigation, claim-level evidence grounding, governing-policy use, process adherence, and calibrated abstention within a common patient-level adjudication framework. Across 16 agentic systems, four-way accuracy spans 65.3-76.1%, but raw accuracy overstates investigation quality. Defect-free accuracy, which credits a verdict only when correct and free of prohibited shortcuts, is 4.8-14.8 points lower and reorders the leaderboard.
The Limits of AI Data Transparency Policy: Three Disclosure Fallacies
Data transparency has emerged as a rallying cry for addressing concerns about AI: data quality, privacy, and copyright chief among them. Yet while these calls are crucial for accountability, current transparency policies often fall short of their intended aims. Similar to nutrition facts for food, policies aimed at nutrition facts for AI currently suffer from a limited consideration of research on effective disclosures. We offer an institutional perspective and identify three common fallacies in policy implementations of data disclosures for AI. First, many data transparency proposals exhibit a specification gap between the stated goals of data transparency and the actual disclosures necessary to achieve such goals. Second, reform attempts exhibit an enforcement gap between required disclosures on paper and enforcement to ensure compliance in fact. Third, policy proposals manifest an impact gap between disclosed information and meaningful changes in developer practices and public understanding. Informed by the social science on transparency, our analysis identifies affirmative paths for transparency that are effective rather than merely symbolic.