arXiv:2601.02123v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) exhibit strong medical knowledge and can generate factually accurate responses. However, existing models often fail to account for individual patient contexts, producing answers that are clinically correct yet poorly aligned with patients' needs. In this work, we introduce DeCode, a training-free, model-agnostic framework that adapts existing LLMs to produce contextualized answers in clinical settings. We evaluate DeCode on OpenAI HealthBench, a comprehensive and challenging benchmark designed to assess clinical relevance and validity of LLM responses. DeCode improves the previous state of the art from $28.4\%$ to $49.8\%$, corresponding to a $75\%$ relative improvement. Experimental results suggest the effectiveness of DeCode in improving clinical question answering of LLMs.

arXiv:2512.09935v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Fact-checking health-related claims has become increasingly critical as misinformation proliferates online. Effective verification requires both the retrieval of high-quality evidence and rigorous reasoning processes. In this paper, we propose a two-stage framework for health misinformation detection: Agreement Score Prediction followed by Multi-Agent Debate. In the first stage, we employ large language models (LLMs) to independently evaluate retrieved articles and compute an aggregated agreement score that reflects the overall evidence stance. When this score indicates insufficient consensus-falling below a predefined threshold-the system proceeds to a second stage. Multiple agents engage in structured debate to synthesize conflicting evidence and generate well-reasoned verdicts with explicit justifications. Experimental results demonstrate that our two-stage approach achieves superior performance compared to baseline methods, highlighting the value of combining automated scoring with collaborative reasoning for complex verification tasks.