2605.28338v1 May 27, 2026 cs.AI

SafeMed-R1: Clinician-Audited Safety and Ethics Alignment for Medical Large Language Models

Yankai Jiang
Yankai Jiang
Citations: 6
h-index: 1
Yidong Jiang
Yidong Jiang
Citations: 16
h-index: 3
Chao Ding
Chao Ding
Citations: 15
h-index: 2
Zhuangzhi Gao
Zhuangzhi Gao
Citations: 24
h-index: 3
Jie Xu
Jie Xu
Citations: 5
h-index: 1
Jiayuan Chen
Jiayuan Chen
Citations: 41
h-index: 4
Pengcheng Chen
Pengcheng Chen
Citations: 293
h-index: 7
Mouxiao Bian
Mouxiao Bian
Citations: 17
h-index: 3
Tianbin Li
Tianbin Li
Citations: 1
h-index: 1
Minjia Yuan
Minjia Yuan
Citations: 56
h-index: 4
Jinru Ding
Jinru Ding
Citations: 10
h-index: 2
Zhaokai He
Zhaokai He
Citations: 15
h-index: 3
Rongzhao Zhang
Rongzhao Zhang
Citations: 65
h-index: 4
Meiling Liu
Meiling Liu
Citations: 7
h-index: 1
Luyi Jiang
Luyi Jiang
Citations: 6
h-index: 1

Large language models(LLMs) increasingly match expert performance on licensing examinations, yet routine clinical use remains limited because governance requires auditable reasoning, safety and ethics alignment, and resilience to adversarial misuse. Here we present SafeMed-R1, trained with a traceable Clinical Trust Signals(CTS) pipeline that links each reasoning instance to clinician rubric scores and edit histories, and aligned through safety and ethics supervision and red team stress testing. SafeMed-R1 attains a macro-averaged accuracy of 79.6% across clinical benchmarks. Under adversarial safety testing, it shows the lowest aggregated risk and reduces unsafe outputs by about 3 to 5% relative to its baseline. In a paired expert study of 30 medication safety vignettes, SafeMed-R1 matches PGY1 and PGY2 residents on medical correctness and scores higher for medication safety, guideline consistency, and clinical usefulness. Collectively, these results suggest that clinician-audited supervision provenance, together with domain-tailored safety and ethics alignment, can strengthen governance-relevant evidence without relying on inference-time retrieval or citation grounding.

0 Citations
0 Influential
3.5 Altmetric
17.5 Score
Original PDF

No Analysis Report Yet

This paper hasn't been analyzed by Gemini yet.

Log in to request an AI analysis.

댓글

댓글을 작성하려면 로그인하세요.

아직 댓글이 없습니다. 첫 번째 댓글을 남겨보세요!