arXiv AI

Stress-testing medical large language models reveals latent safety pathology beyond benchmark accuracy

arXiv:2606. 07929v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical practice based on benchmark accuracy that may fail to detect safety-relevant failure modes.

arXiv AI
Jun 2

A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models

arXiv:2606. 00027v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed across healthcare, yet existing benchmarks fail to capture model behavior under adversarial or ethically complex conditions common in clinical practice.

By Andrei Marian Feier, Veysel Kocaman, Yigit Gul, Ahmet Korkmaz, Alexander Thomas, Aleksei Zakharov, Jay Gil, Mehmet Butgul, David Talby
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 17

Addressing Benchmarking Gaps in Large Language Models for Health and Medicine with Dynamic Red-Teaming

arXiv:2508. 00923v3 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer health-related questions and support healthcare workflows, yet evidence for their safety still relies heavily on static benchmarks that can rapidly become obsolete or be optimized against.

By Jiazhen Pan (Cherise), Bailiang Jian (Cherise), Paul Hager (Cherise), Yundi Zhang (Cherise), Che Liu (Cherise), Friederike Jungmann (Cherise), Hongwei Bran Li (Cherise), Julian Canisius (Cherise), Chenyu You (Cherise), Junde Wu (Cherise), Jiayuan Zhu (Cherise), Fenglin Liu (Cherise), Yuyuan Liu (Cherise), Niklas Bubeck (Cherise), Moritz Knolle (Cherise), Chen (Cherise), Chen (Cherise), Christian Wachinger, Zhenyu Gong, Cheng Ouyang, Georgios Kaissis, Benedikt Wiestler, Daniel Rueckert
Hugging Face Trending Papers
Aug 17

Toward Better Assessment of LLMs' Performance in Clinical Error Detection

Automated detection of errors in clinical documentation is a promising application of large language models (LLMs), yet decisions to deploy such models rest on benchmarks that evaluate each clinical note in isolation. Error-detection benchmarks are typically constructed by injecting errors into notes, such that each erroneous note has a natural counterpart.

arXiv AI
Oct 2

Counterfactual Auditing of Bias in Open-Source Large Language Models for Clinical Triage

The study evaluates counterfactual bias in ten open‑source large language models (LLMs) for pediatric Emergency Severity Index (ESI) prediction. By creating paired clinical vignettes that differ only in demographic or socioeconomic variables, the authors measure shifts in acuity assignment, finding that counterfactual sensitivity varies widely across model families and sizes. A fine‑tuned Qwen2.5‑7B model exhibited the lowest sensitivity, while larger or medical‑domain models sometimes showed greater shifts, highlighting the need for fairness assessment before clinical deployment.

By Manar Aljohani, Brandon Ho, Kenneth McKinley, Dennis Ren, Xuan Wang
arXiv AI
Aug 25

SDoH-Aware Narrative Anchoring Bias in Medical LLMs for Trustworthy Clinical Decision Support

The paper investigates how medical large language models (LLMs) may exhibit narrative anchoring bias when presented with the same clinical case in different patient voices. Using the NarrativeShield SDoH MedQA dataset, the authors evaluate three Qwen2.5 instruction‑tuned LLMs (1.5B, 3B, 7B) on 300 clinical cases, reporting metrics such as persona‑level accuracy, counterfactual consistency, correct consistency, and narrative sensitivity error. The 7B model achieves the highest accuracy (56.33 %) and correct consistency (40.33 %), yet narrative sensitivity errors remain substantial (31.67 %).

By Ahnaf Atef Choudhury, Ramkrishna Saha
arXiv Machine Learning
Jul 17

MamaBench: Benchmarking LLM Robustness in Maternal and Child Health Diagnosis through Counterfactual Clinical Perturbation

arXiv:2607. 14385v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models achieve strong scores on medical benchmarks, yet these benchmarks evaluate each question in isolation, providing no measure of whether a system can distinguish clinically similar presentations requiring different interventions.

By Thanni Adewuyi, Anuoluwa Sotome, Samuel Okoko, Angel Ezendu, Oluwafunke Akinbuwa, Oluwaseun Odunsi, Oluwasegun Oguntuase, Oluwadarasimi Oguntuase, Ifeoma Nwabueze, Abiodun Adereni