arXiv:2608.01017v2 Announce Type: replace-cross
Abstract: Large language models can answer a medical question correctly and still abandon that answer when a user pushes back. We study this failure as...
By Kaike Ping, Buse \c{C}ar{\i}k, Caleb Wohn, Xiaohan Ding, Tongshuai Wang, Eugenia Rho
arXiv:2608. 09080v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.
By Maryam Tahermazandarani, Adnan Mahmood, Fahmida Islam, Quan Z. Sheng
The study investigates how false content in training data can influence language models’ downstream decisions even without explicit triggers. By comparing models trained on misleading versus truthful documents in a controlled decision task and a real‑world bushfire case, the authors find a gap between factual answers and the decisions derived from them: correct facts do not always lead to correct decisions, and removing an injected number does not eliminate the misleading narrative. The research highlights that data poisoning can subtly alter model behavior beyond what is detectable through direct probing.
By Lin Tian, Marian-Andrei Rizoiu
arXiv:2606. 07237v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization.
By Mahdi Alkaeed
arXiv:2607. 27304v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Medical vision-language models (VLMs) generate chain-of-thought (CoT) reasoning before answering clinical questions, but whether this reasoning causally influences predictions remains unclear.
By Supratik Bhowal, Subhrajyoti Basu, Aritra Gir Mahanta, Anik Pal Chowdhury
MedFabric is a new benchmark for detecting word‑level medical fabrications, comprising 646 fabricated statements each paired with a ground‑truth passage that shares the same LLM authorship and nearly identical wording. The study shows that current detectors perform poorly—expert clinicians achieve only 53.3% macro‑F1 and no detector family surpasses 60% without gold evidence—highlighting that detection hinges on evidence correctness rather than subtlety of fabrication. The authors demonstrate that a retrieval‑confidence gate can substantially improve performance, raising macro‑F1 from 61% to 74%.
By Tung Sum Thomas Kwok, Qian Qian, Xiaofeng Lin, Dongxu Zhang, Jun Han, Zhichao Yang, Davin Hill, Tamer Soliman, Sanjit Singh Batra, Robert Tillman, Guang Cheng