The paper reports that counterfactual fairness audits of clinical language‑model agents are unreliable without accounting for a per‑action instability floor. By repeatedly running identical vignettes, the authors found that actions changed 8.7% of the time, with instability varying eightfold across actions. A second model confirmed a pooled floor of 6.7%, showing that any reported fairness estimate lacking this floor cannot be interpreted as evidence of disparity.
By Rohith Reddy Bellibaltu, Manpreet Singh, Deepak Parashar, Rahul Joshi
arXiv:2607. 18828v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Readiness stress-testing of medical AI has focused on closed-ended and multimodal benchmarks.
By Koyar Afrasyab
arXiv:2608.18768v2 Announce Type: replace
Abstract: Large language models are widely used to simulate survey respondents, yet their outputs are homogeneous and unfaithful to real inter-group differen...
By Fathin Difa Robbani
The study investigates how demographic identity is represented in a language model, using representational similarity analysis against Pew survey data across 169 demographic cells. It finds that standard last‑token read‑outs underestimate the model’s fidelity, while specific attention heads (notably L11 H16) capture demographic structure more accurately, though race‑based types remain weak. Causal interventions reveal that high fidelity does not guarantee causal use, and a 128‑dimensional probe of a single head improves alignment with survey truth but fails to recover per‑question group ordering.
arXiv:2608. 15254v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical-AI guidance increasingly recommends prompting language models to reason with attention to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI).
By Diego Mardian, Frank Liu
arXiv:2608.29995v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Large language models can generate fluent clinical case vignettes, but fluency alone does not ensure fidelity to a specifiable clinical structure. We...
By Amit Oren, Nimrod Hertz-Palmor, Dean Ariel, Guy Laban
arXiv:2608.31017v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Ambient AI scribes draft clinical notes under the reassurance that a clinician signs every note. We audited three commercial AI scribes on the same 1...
By Sebastian Fox, Luke Markham, Ryan Lail, Michael Karotsieris
arXiv:2609.03221v3 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Counterfactual fairness audits of clinical language-model agents report a flip rate: how often an action changes when only the patient's demo...
By Rohith Reddy Bellibatlu, Manpreet Singh, Deepak Parashar, Rahul Joshi
arXiv:2607. 28608v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Clinical risk models routinely achieve strong aggregate performance while producing materially different error rates across patient subgroups.
By Sparsh Roy, Samuel Girmachew, Nishita Chavan
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:2606. 10154v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Quantized checkpoints are often screened first with quality metrics and only later, if at all, with direct safety tests.
By Sahil Kadadekar
The study evaluates large language models (LLMs) on sequential emergency department triage, where acuity labels are predicted from progressively longer nurse‑patient conversations. Six LLMs were tested at five checkpoints on simulated and physician‑authored dialogues, showing a decline from moderate‑to‑substantial agreement on full records to only fair‑to‑moderate agreement at each checkpoint. The models consistently anchor on chief complaint exchanges and fail to integrate later evidence, yielding low agreement with clinicians (QWK 0.295 vs. 0.887‑0.929) and concentrating predictions on ESI‑2 and ESI‑3.
whyItMatters":"The findings reveal that LLMs, despite strong offline performance, cannot reliably handle the sequential nature of real‑time triage, highlighting a critical gap for safe deployment in emergency settings."
By Dipankar Srirag, Haokai Zhao, Ashutosh Kumar, Eleanor Hopper, Michael Dalton, Quoc Dung Nguyen, Aditya Joshi, Salil S. Kanhere, Padmanesan Narasimhan