aiqbench analysis
This study demonstrates that while retrieval-augmented LLMs significantly boost physician diagnostic accuracy, they introduce a critical safety risk by lowering resistance to incorrect advice when it is falsely supported by citations. The findings highlight the asymmetry in human reliance on AI, where perceived grounding can dangerously distort decision-making even as overall performance improves.
Large language models improve physician accuracy but lead to false reliance
arXiv:2608.00817v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) promise source-linked clinical support, but their value depends on whether displayed evidence guides rather than distorts physician reliance. We developed CORA, an agentic retrieval-augmented LLM, to investigate how source-linked assistance affects physician decision-making. CORA maintained benchmark performance and achieved larger gains on cases published after the models' training-data cutoffs. In a study of 46 physicians, accuracy increased from 70.8% unaided to 82.6% with CORA. Supporting citations predicted correct answers (87.7% vs 65.5%), but citations created an important asymmetry: perceived support increased adoption of correct advice from 34% to 76.9% but when an incorrect LLM answer appeared citation-supported, physician resistance to it fell from 92% to 34.8%. These findings show that source-linked LLM assistance can improve physician accuracy while introducing a grounding-dependent safety risk.
Authors:Tirtha Chanda, Christoph Wies, Franziska Schramm, Carina Nogueira Garcia, Nicolas B. Merl, Martin J. Hetz, Jochen S. Utikal, Phillip Tschandl, Cristian Navarrete-Dechent, Alexander Thiem, Jakob N. Kather, Consortium, Titus J. Brinker
Abstract:Retrieval-augmented large language models (LLMs) promise source-linked clinical support, but their value depends on whether displayed evidence guides rather than distorts physician reliance. We developed CORA, an agentic retrieval-augmented LLM, to investigate how source-linked assistance affects physician decision-making. CORA maintained benchmark performance and achieved larger gains on cases published after the models' training-data cutoffs. In a study of 46 physicians, accuracy increased from 70.8% unaided to 82.6% with CORA. Supporting citations predicted correct answers (87.7% vs 65.5%), but citations created an important asymmetry: perceived support increased adoption of correct advice from 34% to 76.9% but when an incorrect LLM answer appeared citation-supported, physician resistance to it fell from 92% to 34.8%. These findings show that source-linked LLM assistance can improve physician accuracy while introducing a grounding-dependent safety risk.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Applications (stat.AP)
arXiv:2608.00817 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2608.00817v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2608.00817 arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 179 words
Related coverage
Introducing Instella-MoE: A State-of-the-Art Fully Open Mixture-of-Experts Language Model
AMD · Jul 24, 2026

What We Learned Trying to Catch AI Liars: An Aletheia's Quest Retrospective
EleutherAI · Aug 25, 2026
Links #5: 2026/07
LessWrong · Jul 31, 2026

Always ask your agent to be honest
LessWrong · Sep 16, 2026