Evaluation format, not model capability, drives measured triage failure in the assessment of consumer health AI

Abstract:A recent Nature Medicine study reported that ChatGPT Health under-triages 51.6% of emergencies and concluded that consumer-facing AI triage poses safety risks. Its protocol, however, was an exam-style scaffold (forced A/B/C/D output, knowledge suppression, no clarifying questions) unlike how consumers use health chatbots. We ask whether the headline error rate is a property of the models or of the measurement. In a first, mechanistic study, five frontier LLMs on a 17-scenario bank scored 6.4 points higher under naturalistic patient-style messages than under the constrained scaffold (p=0.015), and on one vignette three models went from 0-24% with forced choice to 100% with free text. In a second, faithful replication we ran the authors' own 60 released vignettes through six frontier models under four matched formats, with clinician validation of the rewrites and a blinded clinician audit of the LLM adjudicators. Here the direction reversed: free-text rewrites scored slightly below the exact structured prompt (78.7% vs 81.8%, p=0.020), removing only the answer scaffold changed little (80.6% vs 81.4%, p=0.81), and naturalistic input with a forced categorical answer beat both the exact prompt (84.4%, p=0.023) and free text (p=0.0001). On the four vignettes defining the original emergency rate, under-triage was 17% with the exact scaffold, 50% in free text, and 21% when the same message was answered with a forced letter; every free-text "under-triage" was a same-day recommendation scored C rather than D, and 60% made escalation conditional on information the patient was asked to check, behavior a single-turn benchmark cannot score. The headline rate is therefore largely a property of output format and of mapping prose onto a four-point scale. Benchmark scaffolds are behaviorally active instruments; safety claims should report sensitivity to input wording, output format and adjudication.

Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)

arXiv:2603.11413 [cs.HC]

(or arXiv:2603.11413v4 [cs.HC] for this version)

https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2603.11413 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite

arXivLabs is a framework that allows collaborators to develop and share new arXiv features directly on our website.

Both individuals and organizations that work with arXivLabs have embraced and accepted our values of openness, community, excellence, and user data privacy. arXiv is committed to these values and only works with partners that adhere to them.

Have an idea for a project that will add value for arXiv's community? Learn more about arXivLabs.