Accurate clinical coding is essential for healthcare documentation, billing, and decision-making. While prior work shows that off-the-shelf LLMs struggle with this task, evaluations based on exact match metrics often overlook errors where predicted codes are hierarchically close but incorrect. Our analysis reveals that such hierarchical misalignments account for a substantial portion of LLM failures. We show that lightweight interventions, including prompt engineering and small-scale fine-tuning, can improve accuracy without the computational overhead of search-based methods. To address hierarchically near-miss errors, we introduce clinical code verification as both a standalone task and a pipeline component. To mitigate the limitations in existing datasets, such as incomplete evidence and inpatient bias in MIMIC, we release an expert double-annotated benchmark of outpatient clinical notes with ICD-10 codes. Our results highlight verification as an effective and reliable step toward improving LLM-based medical coding.

In real-world scenarios with naturally occurring datasets, reference summaries are noisy and may contain information that cannot be inferred from the source text. On large news corpora, removing low quality samples has been shown to reduce model hallucinations. Yet, for smaller, and/or noisier corpora, filtering is detrimental to performance. To improve reference quality while retaining all data, we propose a new approach: to selectively re-write unsupported reference sentences to better reflect source data. We automatically generate a synthetic dataset of positive and negative revisions by corrupting supported sentences and learn to revise reference sentences with contrastive learning. The intensity of revisions is treated as a controllable attribute so that, at inference, diverse candidates can be over-generated-then-rescored to balance faithfulness and abstraction. To test our methods, we extract noisy references from publicly available MIMIC-III discharge summaries for the task of hospital-course summarization, and vary the data on which models are trained. According to metrics and human evaluation, models trained on revised clinical references are much more faithful, informative, and fluent than models trained on original or filtered data.

We reframe suicide risk assessment from social media as a ranking problem whose goal is maximizing detection of severely at-risk individuals given the time available. Building on measures developed for resource-bounded document retrieval, we introduce a well founded evaluation paradigm, and demonstrate using an expert-annotated test collection that meaningful improvements over plausible cascade model baselines can be achieved using an approach that jointly ranks individuals and their social media posts.

We report on the creation of a dataset for studying assessment of suicide risk via online postings in Reddit. Evaluation of risk-level annotations by experts yields what is, to our knowledge, the first demonstration of reliability in risk assessment by clinicians based on social media postings. We also introduce and demonstrate the value of a new, detailed rubric for assessing suicide risk, compare crowdsourced with expert performance, and present baseline predictive modeling experiments using the new dataset, which will be made available to researchers through the American Association of Suicidology.