aiqbench analysis
This study reveals that while current LLMs exhibit perfect consistency on identical inputs, they remain highly susceptible to diagnostic shifts caused by irrelevant narrative details or added clinical context. Even when models respond appropriately to new information roughly half the time, a significant portion of those adjustments are clinically inappropriate, underscoring that input stability alone is insufficient for safe medical deployment. The findings mandate continued clinician oversight and structured safeguards until AI systems can reliably distinguish between relevant evidence and distracting prompt manipulations.
The Reliability of LLMs for Medical Diagnosis: An Examination of Consistency, Manipulation, and Contextual Awareness
arXiv:2503.10647v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This study evaluated the diagnostic reliability of two Large Language Models (LLMs), Google Gemini 2.0 Flash and OpenAI ChatGPT-4o, across three dimensions: consistency under rephrased inputs, susceptibility to irrelevant prompt content, and responsiveness to added clinical context. We designed 52 clinical scenarios and modified each under controlled conditions. For consistency, scenarios were rephrased with demographic, wording, and examination changes that preserved the diagnostic core. And the susceptibility was evaluated through embedding irrelevant but plausible narrative details while keeping the clinical evidence unchanged. For contextual awareness, patient history, lifestyle data, or diagnostic findings were added to shift the expected diagnosis. Physician reviewers then judged whether context-driven changes were clinically appropriate. Both models returned identical diagnoses across all equivalent variants and repeated queries (100% consistency). When irrelevant details were added, Gemini changed its diagnosis in 40.0% of cases and ChatGPT in 30.0%. ChatGPT responded to context more often than Gemini (77.8% vs. 55.6%), but a larger share of its changes were clinically inappropriate (33.3% vs. 22.2%). Gemini's context-driven changes were more often judged appropriate (66.7% vs. 55.6%). Consistency under controlled inputs did not protect either model from irrelevant manipulation or unjustified diagnostic shifts when context changed. Before LLMs can separate relevant from irrelevant input and flag insufficient evidence, their diagnostic use requires clinician oversight and structured safeguards.
Abstract:This study evaluated the diagnostic reliability of two Large Language Models (LLMs), Google Gemini 2.0 Flash and OpenAI ChatGPT-4o, across three dimensions: consistency under rephrased inputs, susceptibility to irrelevant prompt content, and responsiveness to added clinical context. We designed 52 clinical scenarios and modified each under controlled conditions. For consistency, scenarios were rephrased with demographic, wording, and examination changes that preserved the diagnostic core. And the susceptibility was evaluated through embedding irrelevant but plausible narrative details while keeping the clinical evidence unchanged. For contextual awareness, patient history, lifestyle data, or diagnostic findings were added to shift the expected diagnosis. Physician reviewers then judged whether context-driven changes were clinically appropriate. Both models returned identical diagnoses across all equivalent variants and repeated queries (100% consistency). When irrelevant details were added, Gemini changed its diagnosis in 40.0% of cases and ChatGPT in 30.0%. ChatGPT responded to context more often than Gemini (77.8% vs. 55.6%), but a larger share of its changes were clinically inappropriate (33.3% vs. 22.2%). Gemini's context-driven changes were more often judged appropriate (66.7% vs. 55.6%). Consistency under controlled inputs did not protect either model from irrelevant manipulation or unjustified diagnostic shifts when context changed. Before LLMs can separate relevant from irrelevant input and flag insufficient evidence, their diagnostic use requires clinician oversight and structured safeguards.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Computers and Society (cs.CY); Human-Computer Interaction (cs.HC)
arXiv:2503.10647 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2503.10647v2 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2503.10647 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.
Full text under the publisher's open licence · 318 words
Related coverage
When Large Language Models Fail in Healthcare: Evaluating Sensitivity to Prompt Variations
arXiv · Jun 8, 2026
State of the Field: AI for Epistemics and Coordination
LessWrong · Oct 2, 2026

LiveLaw Supreme Court Half-Yearly Digest: January - June 2026 [Part 2]
livelaw.in · Sep 13, 2026

Reducing medical claims review time with AI on AWS: The EXL Medical IDP solution
AWS · Sep 21, 2026