arXiv:2512.11814v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) scribes, systems that record and summarise patient-clinician interactions, are promoted as solutions to administrative overload. This paper argues that their significance lies not in efficiency gains but in how they reshape medical attention itself. Offering a conceptual analysis, it situates AI scribes within a broader philosophical lineage concerned with the externalisation of human thought and skill. Drawing on Iain McGilchrist's hemisphere theory and Lewis Mumford's philosophy of technics, the paper examines how technology embodies and amplifies a particular mode of attention. AI scribes, it contends, exemplify the dominance of a left-hemispheric, calculative mindset that privileges the measurable and procedural over the intuitive and relational. As this mode of attention becomes further embedded in medical practice, it risks narrowing the field of care, eroding clinical expertise, and reducing physicians to operators within an increasingly mechanised system.

arXiv:2512.12500v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly permeating healthcare, from physician assistants to consumer applications. Since AI algorithm's opacity challenges human interaction, explainable AI (XAI) addresses this by providing AI decision-making insight, but evidence suggests XAI can paradoxically induce over-reliance or bias. We present results from two large-scale experiments (623 lay people; 153 primary care physicians, PCPs) combining a fairness-based diagnosis AI model and different XAI explanations to examine how XAI assistance, particularly multimodal large language models (LLMs), influences diagnostic performance. AI assistance balanced across skin tones improved accuracy and reduced diagnostic disparities. However, LLM explanations yielded divergent effects: lay users showed higher automation bias - accuracy boosted when AI was correct, reduced when AI erred - while experienced PCPs remained resilient, benefiting irrespective of AI accuracy. Presenting AI suggestions first also led to worse outcomes when the AI was incorrect for both groups. These findings highlight XAI's varying impact based on expertise and timing, underscoring LLMs as a "double-edged sword" in medical AI and informing future human-AI collaborative system design.

arXiv:2505.12923v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: As AI systems increasingly assume roles where trust and alignment with human values are essential, understanding when and why they engage in deception has become a critical research priority. We introduce The Traitors, a multi-agent simulation framework inspired by social deduction games, designed to probe deception, trust formation, and strategic communication among large language model (LLM) agents under asymmetric information. A minority of agents the traitors seek to mislead the majority, while the faithful must infer hidden identities through dialogue and reasoning. Our contributions are: (1) we ground the environment in formal frameworks from game theory, behavioral economics, and social cognition; (2) we develop a suite of evaluation metrics capturing deception success, trust dynamics, and collective inference quality; (3) we implement a fully autonomous simulation platform where LLMs reason over persistent memory and evolving social dynamics, with support for heterogeneous agent populations, specialized traits, and adaptive behaviors. Our initial experiments across DeepSeek-V3, GPT-4o-mini, and GPT-4o (10 runs per model) reveal a notable asymmetry: advanced models like GPT-4o demonstrate superior deceptive capabilities yet exhibit disproportionate vulnerability to others' falsehoods. This suggests deception skills may scale faster than detection abilities. Overall, The Traitors provides a focused, configurable testbed for investigating LLM behavior in socially nuanced interactions. We position this work as a contribution toward more rigorous research on deception mechanisms, alignment challenges, and the broader social reliability of AI systems.

arXiv:2510.02967v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper presents the development and evaluation of a Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) system for querying the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines using Large Language Models (LLMs). The extensive length and volume of these guidelines can impede their utilisation within a time-constrained healthcare system, a challenge this project addresses through the creation of a system capable of providing users with precisely matched information in response to natural language queries. The system's retrieval architecture, composed of a hybrid embedding mechanism, was evaluated against a corpus of 10,195 text chunks derived from three hundred guidelines. It demonstrates high performance, with a Mean Reciprocal Rank (MRR) of 0.814, a Recall of 81% at the first chunk and of 99.1% within the top ten retrieved chunks, when evaluated on 7901 queries. The most significant impact of the RAG system was observed during the generation phase. When evaluated on a manually curated dataset of seventy question-answer pairs, RAG-enhanced models showed substantial gains in performance. Faithfulness, the measure of whether an answer is supported by the source text, was increased by 64.7 percentage points to 99.5% for the RAG-enhanced O4-Mini model and significantly outperformed the medical-focused Meditron3-8B LLM, which scored 43%. Clinical evaluation by seven Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) further validated these findings, with GPT-4.1 achieving 98.7% accuracy while reducing unsafe responses by 67% compared to O4-Mini (from 3.0 to 1.0 per evaluator). This study thus establishes RAG as an effective, reliable, and scalable approach for applying generative AI in healthcare, enabling cost-effective access to medical guidelines.

npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 15 December 2025; doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02218-5

H&E-based MSI/MMR testing with AI in colorectal cancer: a multi-centred blinded evaluation

npj Digital Medicine, Published online: 15 December 2025; doi:10.1038/s41746-025-02230-9

A randomized clinical trial of app cognitive behavior therapy vs. HealthWatch for obsessive compulsive disorder