Real-world tabular databases routinely combine continuous measurements and categorical records, yet missing entries are pervasive and can distort downstream analysis. We propose Statistical-Neural Interaction (SNI), an interpretable mixed-type imputation framework that couples correlation-derived statistical priors with neural feature attention through a Controllable-Prior Feature Attention (CPFA) module. CPFA learns head-wise prior-strength coefficients $\{λ_h\}$ that softly regularize attention toward the prior while allowing data-driven deviations when nonlinear patterns appear to be present in the data. Beyond imputation, SNI aggregates attention maps into a directed feature-dependency matrix that summarizes which variables the imputer relied on, without requiring post-hoc explainers. We evaluate SNI against six baselines (Mean/Mode, MICE, KNN, MissForest, GAIN, MIWAE) on six datasets spanning ICU monitoring, population surveys, socio-economic statistics, and engineering applications. Under MCAR/strict-MAR at 30\% missingness, SNI is generally competitive on continuous metrics but is often outperformed by accuracy-first baselines (MissForest, MIWAE) on categorical variables; in return, it provides intrinsic dependency diagnostics and explicit statistical-neural trade-off parameters. We additionally report MNAR stress tests (with a mask-aware variant) and discuss computational cost, limitations -- particularly for severely imbalanced categorical targets -- and deployment scenarios where interpretability may justify the trade-off.

This study proposes the novel Bayesian and inverse Bayesian (BIB) inference framework that incorporates symmetry bias into the Bayesian updating process to perform both conventional and inverse Bayesian updates concurrently. Conventional Bayesian inference is constrained by a fundamental trade-off between adaptability to abrupt environmental changes and accuracy during stable periods. The BIB framework addresses this limitation by dynamically modulating the learning rate via inverse Bayesian updates, thereby enhancing adaptive flexibility. The BIB model was evaluated in a sequential estimation task involving observations drawn from a Gaussian distribution with a stochastically time-varying mean, where it exhibited spontaneous bursts in the learning rate during environmental transitions, transiently entering high-sensitivity states that facilitated rapid adaptation. This burst-relaxation dynamic serves as a mechanism for balancing adaptability and accuracy. Furthermore, avalanche analysis, detrended fluctuation analysis, and power spectral analysis revealed that the BIB system likely operates near a critical state-a property not observed in standard Bayesian inference. This suggests that the BIB model uniquely achieves a coexistence of computational efficiency and critical dynamics, resolving the adaptability-accuracy trade-off while maintaining scale-free behavior. These findings offer a new computational perspective on scale-free dynamics in natural systems and provide valuable insights for the design of adaptive inference systems in nonstationary environments.

Early identification of high-risk ICU patients is crucial for directing limited medical resources. We introduce ALFIA (Adaptive Layer Fusion with Intelligent Attention), a modular, attention-based architecture that jointly trains LoRA (Low-Rank Adaptation) adapters and an adaptive layer-weighting mechanism to fuse multi-layer semantic features from a BERT backbone. Trained on our rigorous cw-24 (CriticalWindow-24) benchmark, ALFIA surpasses state-of-the-art tabular classifiers in AUPRC while preserving a balanced precision-recall profile. The embeddings produced by ALFIA's fusion module, capturing both fine-grained clinical cues and high-level concepts, enable seamless pairing with GBDTs (CatBoost/LightGBM) as ALFIA-boost, and deep neuro networks as ALFIA-nn, yielding additional performance gains. Our experiments confirm ALFIA's superior early-warning performance, by operating directly on routine clinical text, it furnishes clinicians with a convenient yet robust tool for risk stratification and timely intervention in critical-care settings.

In a clinical trial, the random allocation aims to balance prognostic factors between arms, preventing true confounders. However, residual differences due to chance may introduce near-confounders. Adjusting on prognostic factors is therefore recommended, especially because the related increase of the power. In this paper, we hypothesized that G-computation associated with machine learning could be a suitable method for randomized clinical trials even with small sample sizes. It allows for flexible estimation of the outcome model, even when the covariates' relationships with outcomes are complex. Through simulations, penalized regressions (Lasso, Elasticnet) and algorithm-based methods (neural network, support vector machine, super learner) were compared. Penalized regressions reduced variance but may introduce a slight increase in bias. The associated reductions in sample size ranged from 17\% to 54\%. In contrast, algorithm-based methods, while effective for larger and more complex data structures, underestimated the standard deviation, especially with small sample sizes. In conclusion, G-computation with penalized models, particularly Elasticnet with splines when appropriate, represents a relevant approach for increasing the power of RCTs and accounting for potential near-confounders.

Language models are known to hallucinate incorrect information, and it is unclear if they are sufficiently accurate and reliable for use in scientific research. We developed a rigorous human-AI comparison methodology to evaluate language model agents on real-world literature search tasks covering information retrieval, summarization, and contradiction detection tasks. We show that PaperQA2, a frontier language model agent optimized for improved factuality, matches or exceeds subject matter expert performance on three realistic literature research tasks without any restrictions on humans (i.e., full access to internet, search tools, and time). PaperQA2 writes cited, Wikipedia-style summaries of scientific topics that are significantly more accurate than existing, human-written Wikipedia articles. We also introduce a hard benchmark for scientific literature research called LitQA2 that guided design of PaperQA2, leading to it exceeding human performance. Finally, we apply PaperQA2 to identify contradictions within the scientific literature, an important scientific task that is challenging for humans. PaperQA2 identifies 2.34 +/- 1.99 contradictions per paper in a random subset of biology papers, of which 70% are validated by human experts. These results demonstrate that language model agents are now capable of exceeding domain experts across meaningful tasks on scientific literature.