arXiv AI By Min Zeng, Rui Zhang

Large language models exhibit unreliable updating of clinical judgment as patient evidence evolves

Read the original on arXiv AI →

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical reasoning, yet their ability to revise judgments as patient evidence changes is uncertain. In this study, researchers evaluated longitudinal belief updating using real intensive‑care patient trajectories and found that conditioning on prior judgments often increased prediction error. Controlled experiments revealed two failure modes: models were more responsive to worsening than improving respiratory evidence, and they shifted estimates significantly when prior risk was altered, indicating a causal influence of prior beliefs. Prompting did not improve reliability, and an Evidence‑Validated Longitudinal Update (EVLU) approach produced fewer but more trustworthy revisions, highlighting a reliability‑coverage trade‑off.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

arXiv AI
Jul 16

Ask Before You Diagnose: Safe-Psych, a Sequential Evaluation Benchmark for LLMs in Psychiatry

arXiv:2607. 13036v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for decision support in healthcare, but clinical evidence is often incomplete or evolving.

By Oriana Presacan, Andreea Grama, Larisa Irimin\u{a}, Alireza Nik, Jaya Ojha, Vajira Thambawita, Ciprian I. B\u{a}cil\u{a}, Bogdan Ionescu, Michael A. Riegler
arXiv Computation and Language
Sep 22

LLMs Anchor on Chief Complaint and Fail to Integrate Evidence in Sequential Clinical Triage

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
arXiv AI
Jul 9

SycoEval-EM: Sycophancy Evaluation of Large Language Models in Simulated Clinical Encounters for Emergency Care

arXiv:2601. 16529v4 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) deployed in clinical decision support may acquiesce to patient requests for care that conflicts with evidence-based guidelines.

By Dongshen Peng, Yi Wang, Austin Schoeffler, Sun-ha Hong, Brian Suffoletto, David Kim, Carl Preiksaitis, Christian Rose
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