aiqbench analysis
This study benchmarks large language models in clinical triage, revealing that they are significantly more sensitive to irrelevant textual perturbations like gender and tone than human physicians. The findings highlight a critical reliability gap where LLMs tend to recommend unnecessary care, underscoring the urgent need for deployment-oriented evaluations grounded in expert medical behavior.
Sense and Sensitivity: Benchmarking LLM Clinical Triage Recommendations with Physician Experts
arXiv:2609.38600v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, it is critical to evaluate their reliability under realistic variation in clinical text. We study this question in clinical triage, comparing LLMs to practicing physicians under text perturbations that preserve the underlying clinical setting. We introduce a benchmark of over 6,000 clinical scenarios, 7,000 physician annotations, and 225,000 model responses. Using this benchmark, we make two key observations. First, LLMs are more likely than physicians to recommend unnecessary care at baseline, and this tendency increases under perturbed inputs. Further, we find that LLM recommendations are more sensitive to gender and tone perturbations than human recommendations. Together, these results demonstrate that LLMs can vary under clinically irrelevant textual changes, highlighting the need for deployment-oriented evaluations grounded in expert physician behavior.
Abstract:As large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, it is critical to evaluate their reliability under realistic variation in clinical text. We study this question in clinical triage, comparing LLMs to practicing physicians under text perturbations that preserve the underlying clinical setting. We introduce a benchmark of over 6,000 clinical scenarios, 7,000 physician annotations, and 225,000 model responses. Using this benchmark, we make two key observations. First, LLMs are more likely than physicians to recommend unnecessary care at baseline, and this tendency increases under perturbed inputs. Further, we find that LLM recommendations are more sensitive to gender and tone perturbations than human recommendations. Together, these results demonstrate that LLMs can vary under clinically irrelevant textual changes, highlighting the need for deployment-oriented evaluations grounded in expert physician behavior.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2609.38600 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2609.38600v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2609.38600 Focus to learn more arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)
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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 224 words
Related coverage

MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · Oct 2, 2026

AI in healthcare: applications and best practices
Databricks · Jul 24, 2026

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · Aug 3, 2026

Presentation: Running AI at the Edge: Running Real Workloads Directly in the Browser
InfoQ · Aug 31, 2026