Predicting future clinical outcomes from electronic health records (EHR) remains challenging due to the complexity and heterogeneity of patient data. LLMs have shown strong potential for such predictive tasks, yet existing approaches mainly focus on enhancing medical knowledge through distillation or RAG while relying on the model’s internal ability to interpret contextual information. In this work, we present ReMedi (Reasoner for Medical Clinical Prediction), a framework for improving clinical outcome prediction from EHR. ReMedi generates rationale–answer pairs using a challenging sample regeneration mechanism for complex clinical questions, which leverages ground-truth answers as hints to enhance reasoning for further fine-tuning and preference tuning. ReMedi integrates ground-truth outcome guidance into the preference data construction loop, regenerating rationale-answer variants. By tuning on these rationale-answer pairs, the model improves its predictive performance. Experiments on multiple EHR prediction tasks demonstrate substantial gains of up to 19.9% over state-of-the-art baselines in terms of F1 score, underscoring ReMedi’s effectiveness in real-world clinical prediction.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used not only to generate code, but also to judge it: comparing, ranking, or scoring competing solutions. However, their reliability in this evaluative role remains poorly understood. Inconsistent or flawed judgments can undermine benchmarks and distort training signals. This paper investigates the performance and robustness of LLMs when used as code judges. We introduce CodeJudgeBench, a benchmark explicitly designed to evaluate LLM-as-a-Judge models across three critical coding tasks: code generation, code repair, and unit test generation. We comprehensively benchmark the performance of 26 LLM-as-a-Judge models, encompassing general-purpose, code-tuned, and reasoning models. Our empirical findings reveal that relatively small reasoning models (e.g., Qwen3-8B) can outperform much larger non-reasoning models up to 70B. We further stress-test robustness by applying both general and code-specific perturbations. All models show significant instability and are sensitive to changes such as response ordering, variable naming, and misleading comments. These findings highlight serious concerns about the consistency and robustness of LLM-based judges for coding tasks.