Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied in biomedical domains, yet their reliability in drug-safety prediction remains underexplored. In this work, we investigate whether LLMs incorporate socio-demographic information into adverse event (AE) predictions, despite such attributes being clinically irrelevant. Using structured data from the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and a persona-based evaluation framework, we assess two state-of-the-art models, ChatGPT-4o and Bio-Medical-Llama-3.8B, across diverse personas defined by education, marital status, employment, insurance, language, housing stability, and religion. We further evaluate performance across three user roles (general practitioner, specialist, patient) to reflect real-world deployment scenarios where commercial systems often differentiate access by user type. Our results reveal systematic disparities in AE prediction accuracy. Disadvantaged groups (e.g., low education, unstable housing) were frequently assigned higher predicted AE likelihoods than more privileged groups (e.g., postgraduate-educated, privately insured). Beyond outcome disparities, we identify two distinct modes of bias: explicit bias, where incorrect predictions directly reference persona attributes in reasoning traces, and implicit bias, where predictions are inconsistent, yet personas are not explicitly mentioned. These findings expose critical risks in applying LLMs to pharmacovigilance and highlight the urgent need for fairness-aware evaluation protocols and mitigation strategies before clinical deployment.

Variant and gene interpretation are fundamental to personalized medicine and translational biomedicine. However, traditional approaches are manual and labor-intensive. Generative language models (LMs) can facilitate this process, accelerating the translation of fundamental research into clinically-actionable insights. While existing benchmarks have attempted to quantify the capabilities of LMs for interpreting scientific data, these studies focus on narrow tasks that do not translate to real-world research. To meet these challenges, we introduce CGBench, a robust benchmark that tests reasoning capabilities of LMs on scientific publications. CGBench is built from ClinGen, a resource of expert-curated literature interpretations in clinical genetics. CGBench measures the ability to 1) extract relevant experimental results following precise protocols and guidelines, 2) judge the strength of evidence, and 3) categorize and describe the relevant outcome of experiments. We test 8 different LMs and find that while models show promise, substantial gaps exist in literature interpretation, especially on fine-grained instructions. Reasoning models excel in fine-grained tasks but non-reasoning models are better at high-level interpretations. Finally, we measure LM explanations against human explanations with an LM judge approach, revealing that models often hallucinate or misinterpret results even when correctly classifying evidence. CGBench reveals strengths and weaknesses of LMs for precise interpretation of scientific publications, opening avenues for future research in AI for clinical genetics and science more broadly.

Despite their ability to understand chemical knowledge, large language models (LLMs) remain limited in their capacity to propose novel molecules with desired functions (e.g., drug-like properties). In addition, the molecules that LLMs propose can often be challenging to make, and are almost never compatible with automated synthesis approaches. To better enable the discovery of functional small molecules, LLMs need to learn a new molecular language that is more effective in predicting properties and inherently synced with automated synthesis technology. Current molecule LLMs are limited by representing molecules based on atoms. In this paper, we argue that just like tokenizing texts into meaning-bearing (sub-)word tokens instead of characters, molecules should be tokenized at the level of functional building blocks, i.e., parts of molecules that bring unique functions and serve as effective building blocks for real-world automated laboratory synthesis. This motivates us to propose mCLM, a modular Chemical-Language Model that comprises a bilingual language model that understands both natural language descriptions of functions and molecular blocks. mCLM front-loads synthesizability considerations while improving the predicted functions of molecules in a principled manner. mCLM, with only 3B parameters, achieves improvements in synthetic accessibility relative to 7 other leading generative AI methods including GPT-5. When tested on 122 out-of-distribution medicines using only building blocks/tokens that are compatible with automated modular synthesis, mCLM outperforms all baselines in property scores and synthetic accessibility. mCLM can also reason on multiple functions and iteratively self-improve to rescue drug candidates that failed late in clinical trials ("fallen angels").

While ethical arguments for fairness in healthcare AI are well-established, the economic and strategic value of inclusive design remains underexplored. This perspective introduces the ``inclusive innovation dividend'' -- the counterintuitive principle that solutions engineered for diverse, constrained use cases generate superior economic returns in broader markets. Drawing from assistive technologies that evolved into billion-dollar mainstream industries, we demonstrate how inclusive healthcare AI development creates business value beyond compliance requirements. We identify four mechanisms through which inclusive innovation drives returns: (1) market expansion via geographic scalability and trust acceleration; (2) risk mitigation through reduced remediation costs and litigation exposure; (3) performance dividends from superior generalization and reduced technical debt, and (4) competitive advantages in talent acquisition and clinical adoption. We present the Healthcare AI Inclusive Innovation Framework (HAIIF), a practical scoring system that enables organizations to evaluate AI investments based on their potential to capture these benefits. HAIIF provides structured guidance for resource allocation, transforming fairness and inclusivity from regulatory checkboxes into sources of strategic differentiation. Our findings suggest that organizations investing incrementally in inclusive design can achieve expanded market reach and sustained competitive advantages, while those treating these considerations as overhead face compounding disadvantages as network effects and data advantages accrue to early movers.

However, progress is limited by a lack of standardized datasets and comparison metrics, causing methods to be compared in an ad hoc manner.

Datasheet Dataset URL Responsibility and statement of license Hosting/maintenance plan Data format Structured metadata UniTox Datasheet Motivation For what purpose was the dataset created? UniTox was created as a unified toxicity dataset across eight types of drug toxicities (cardiotoxicity, liver toxicity, renal toxicity, pulmonary toxicity, hematological toxicity, dermatological toxicity, ototoxicity, and infertility). We generated information across all toxicities for the same set of 2,418 drugs with the same methodology of applying LLMs. For each drug, for each toxicity, we provide an LLM-generated summary of the relevant portions of the drug label, as well as ternary (No/Less/Most) predictions and binary (No/Yes) predictions for that toxicity. Who created the dataset (e.g., which team, research group) and on behalf of which entity (e.g., company, institution, organization)?

As such, it is often desired to select a small number of informative features to consider in subsequent analyses.