Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Jiunan Wen

dblp:421/8975 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
1since 2021 · last 2026
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Artificial intelligence and machine learning · 1 · 1 since 2021Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and emerging computing
1 paper
Medical and health informatics · 100%
Artificial intelligence
1 paper
Language models and text generation · 33% Knowledge representation and reasoning · 33% Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning · 33%

Topics — the 6 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Medical and health informatics
clinical decision-making
1.012026
REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks · AAAI 2026
Medical and health informatics › clinical prediction
clinical outcome prediction
1.012026
REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks · AAAI 2026
Medical and health informatics › clinical prediction
clinical risk prediction
1.012026
REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks · AAAI 2026
Machine learning › Probabilistic and Bayesian machine learning › causal inference
causal discovery
0.312026
REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks · AAAI 2026
Knowledge, reasoning and agents › Knowledge representation and reasoning
causal reasoning
0.312026
REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks · AAAI 2026
Natural language and speech › Language models and text generation
large language model
0.312026
REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks · AAAI 2026

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

large language model · 2.0in-context learning · 2.0causal discovery · 2.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2026 REACT-LLM: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLM Integration with Causal Features in Clinical Prognostic Tasks
abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) and causal learning each hold strong potential for clinical decision making (CDM). However, their synergy remains poorly understood, largely due to the lack of systematic benchmarks evaluating their integration in clinical risk prediction. In real-world healthcare, identifying features with causal influence on outcomes is crucial for actionable and trustworthy predictions. While recent work highlights LLMs' emerging causal reasoning abilities, there lacks comprehensive benchmarks to assess their causal learning and performance informed by causal features in clinical risk prediction. To address this, we introduce REACT-LLM, a benchmark designed to evaluate whether combining LLMs with causal features can enhance clinical prognostic performance and potentially outperform traditional machine learning (ML) methods. Unlike existing LLM-clinical benchmarks that often focus on a limited set of outcomes, REACT-LLM evaluates 7 clinical outcomes across 2 real-world datasets, comparing 15 prominent LLMs, 6 traditional ML models, and 3 causal discovery (CD) algorithms. Our findings indicate that while LLMs perform reasonably in clinical prognostics, they have not yet outperformed traditional ML models. Integrating causal features derived from CD algorithms into LLMs offers limited performance gains, primarily due to the strict assumptions of many CD methods, which are often violated in complex clinical data. While the direct integration yields limited improvement, our benchmark reveals a more promising synergy: LLMs serve effectively as knowledge-rich collaborators for identifying and optimizing causal features. Additionally, in-context learning improves LLM predictions when prompts are tailored to the task and model. Different LLMs show varying sensitivity to structured data encoding formats, for example, open-source models perform better with JSON, while smaller models benefit from narrative serialization. These findings highlight the need to match prompts and data formats to model architecture and pretraining.
Linna Wang, Zhixuan You, Qihui Zhang, Jiunan Wen, Fanqi Ding, Ziliang Feng
AAAI4