Introduction

Anusheh Chaudry · Machine learning engineer I build LLM agents and model-serving infrastructure. Much of my earlier ML work was in health.

Anusheh in a white dress and a red Stanford stole, holding her graduation cap beside a sandstone column
Fig. 0: Graduation, Stanford

I'm a machine learning engineer. Most recently I built agent features for Surfboard at Artemis Software Works; before that I was a software engineer on AWS Bedrock, working on the infrastructure that serves Anthropic's models. I'm finishing my master's in computer science at Stanford, where I also teach.

LLM agents · Inference infrastructure · ML for healthcare · Teaching

Currently
Nov 2026
Work

Where I've worked

  • Machine Learning Engineer Artemis Software Works Built agent memory and meeting-briefing features for Surfboard; cut an agent's operating cost 16.6% Apr – Sep 2026
  • Software Development Engineer, AWS Bedrock Amazon Web Services Worked on the infrastructure serving Anthropic models; helped cut deploy time and weekly Sev-2 pages by 50% Sep 2025 – Apr 2026
  • Software Development Engineering Intern Amazon Web Services Automated Bedrock Agents deployment into customer accounts for Amazon FinSpace Jun – Sep 2024
  • Software Engineering Intern Inference Analytics Radiology-report language models; patient-scheduling chatbot for UChicago Medicine Jun – Sep 2023
  • Undergraduate Researcher, Medical Imaging Stanford University Predicted fractures and cardiovascular events from CT scans and health records Jul 2022 – Apr 2023
Selected projects

Projects and research

No. 01 2026 in progress

Clinical AI agents

Why did this patient's treatment change?

An agent that explains why a patient's treatments changed, citing evidence from the record and the notes.

A patient’s record shows that a drug was started, stopped, or switched, but the reason is usually buried in the notes, if it’s written down at all. I’m building an agent that reads the structured record (drugs, labs, diagnoses) alongside the clinical notes and explains each treatment change, citing the evidence for every reason.

Diagram: a structured record and clinical notes feed an agent with tools, which explains why a treatment changed; every citation is then checked against the record.
Fig. 1: Records and notes in, cited explanations out, with every quote checked.
  • The agent works through tools: the patient's timeline, detected treatment changes, the labs around each change, note search, and read-only SQL. Every citation is checked: the cited record must exist and belong to the patient, and quoted text must appear in the note.
  • I adapted SLIDERS, an open-source method for extracting tables from documents, to clinical notes. That meant a treatment-change schema with certainty (performed, planned, considered, held), rules for things like copied-forward medication lists, and a fast profile that cut one run from 45 model calls and 265 seconds to 8 calls and 32 seconds.
  • A combined method lets SLIDERS propose candidate changes and the agent verify the most important ones. Early tests cover only a few case reports and one synthetic patient, so they're hints, not results; human-labeled evaluation is next.
  • Built on public data (the MIMIC-IV demo and PMC-Patients case reports) while access to a larger clinical dataset is pending.

LLM agents · Tool use · Clinical NLP · OMOP · Evaluation

No. 02 2025

Web app · Team of four

PocketCare

Explains medical bills and insurance plans in plain language.

Medical bills and insurance plans are written for billing departments, not patients. PocketCare reads a bill or a plan and explains it in plain language, then answers follow-up questions about your own documents. Bill text is de-identified (names, account numbers, and other personal details removed) before it’s sent to the language model.

Diagram: PDF bill, then Document AI OCR, then de-identification with Presidio, then Gemini.
Fig. 2: Bill text is de-identified before it reaches the model.
  • Pipeline: Google Document AI reads the PDF, a de-identification step (Microsoft Presidio plus custom recognizers for things like account numbers) strips personal details, then Gemini 1.5 Flash explains it with task-specific prompts.
  • Limits: raw documents pass through Document AI for OCR before de-identification, and a user's follow-up questions are sent to the model as written.
  • Django REST API with session auth and CSRF protection; Next.js and TypeScript front end; saved bills and analyses live in a per-user document library.

My part: Set up the Django backend and built the bill-breakdown feature end to end, from upload and document parsing to analysis, including the prompts behind the bill and insurance explanations.

Next.js · Django · Gemini · Document AI

No. 03 2024

LLM assistant for emergency medicine · Team of three

AssistEMT

An LLM assistant for EMTs; GPT-4 with retrieval scored 88.3% on a written EMT exam.

A conversational assistant that walks through an emergency medical assessment following national EMT guidelines, designed to work alongside robots that perform the physical exam. We fine-tuned GPT-3.5 on EMT datasets we built, and compared it against GPT-4 with prompt engineering and with retrieval.

Bar chart of written EMT exam scores: OpenBioLLM 71.6, GPT-3.5 76.6, fine-tuned GPT-3.5 80.0, GPT-4 87.5, GPT-4 with retrieval and prompting 88.3; passing is 70.
Fig. 3: Written exam scores by model; the fine-tuned GPT-3.5 (red) was my part. Numbers from the paper.
  • Built two EMT-specific datasets (1,056 Q&A pairs from national EMS guidelines and 1,562 from an EMT textbook) and fine-tuned GPT-3.5 on combinations of them plus PubMedQA.
  • Compared that with GPT-4 using prompt engineering, and GPT-4 with retrieval over EMT documents and web search.
  • On a 120-question written EMT exam, GPT-4 with retrieval and prompting scored 88.3% and GPT-4 alone 87.5%. Fine-tuning GPT-3.5 on all three datasets raised it from 76.6% to 80.0%.
  • Trained EMTs graded each model on clinical scenarios with the official rubric. GPT-4 with prompt engineering did best there (0.80 average), ahead of GPT-4 with retrieval (0.66) and fine-tuned GPT-3.5 (0.43).

My part: Fine-tuned the GPT-3.5 models and built our EMT datasets, including a 1,562-pair question-and-answer set drawn from an EMT textbook.

Fine-tuning · RAG · GPT-3.5 · GPT-4 · Evaluation

Teaching

Teaching

After CS + Social Good Studio stopped being taught in 2022, I rewrote its curriculum and brought it back, then taught it through 2025. It's a Stanford course run entirely by students. Student teams designed and built apps with health-tech and ed-tech partners. This year I'm helping teach the first offering of a course on engineering AI agents.