ArticleDigital health
Dynamic alignment of large language models for evidence-grounded heart failure decision support.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly studied for clinical decision support, but high-risk cardiology exposes persistent weaknesses in hallucination control, guideline adherence, and medication-safety reasoning. Heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is a demanding test case because safe care requires structured guideline-directed therapy, comorbidity-aware monitoring, and reliable risk warnings. Methods: We developed a dynamic alignment framework using 1087 retrospective HFrEF cases from Affiliated Zhongshan Hospital of Dalian University. An open-source LLaMA-3.1 backbone was optimized through four sequential stages: continual pre-training for heart-failure domain adaptation, supervised fine-tuning for structured clinical responses, reinforcement policy optimization for safety-oriented alignment, and retrieval-augmented generation for guideline grounding. Models were assessed with dual-track clinical and linguistic metrics. Results: LLaMA-3.1 was the strongest supervised baseline, but supervised fine-tuning alone did not fully resolve guideline-adherence limitations. Staged alignment produced a measurable Alignment Tax: the final retrieval-grounded variant improved the Clinical Score from 0.716 to 0.864 and reached a Guideline Score of 0.881, while BLEU-4 decreased from 0.371 to 0.272. The decline in surface overlap coincided with stronger risk safety, stricter structure, and more guideline-directed outputs. Conclusions: Dynamic alignment shifted the model from linguistic mimicry toward clinically constrained HFrEF decision support. These findings suggest that staged optimization with policy alignment and retrieval grounding can improve evidence-based recommendations, while conventional language-overlap metrics may underestimate clinically safer generation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.