analiza aiqbench
This study establishes a rigorous simulation framework to evaluate performance risks in conversational clinical AI, specifically demonstrating how model accuracy degrades as patient health literacy decreases. By validating the system against NIST risk management standards, it provides an empirical basis for ensuring safety and equity in AI-driven healthcare decision aids before deployment.
A Patient Simulation Framework for Risk Assessment of Conversational Healthcare AI: Evaluation of an Antidepressant Decision Aid
arXiv:2602.11391v5 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Objective: This study develops and validates a patient simulation framework that aligns with the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework MAP and MEASURE functions, providing an empirical basis for identifying and characterizing performance risks in conversational clinical AI across medical, linguistic, and behavioral patient variation. We applied the framework to a conversational decision aid for antidepressant selection in major depressive disorder. Methods: The simulator integrates three profile dimensions: (1) medical profiles constructed from All of Us electronic health records using risk-ratio gating; (2) linguistic profiles modeling a health literacy gradient and condition-specific communication; and (3) behavioral profiles representing cooperative, distracted, and adversarial engagement. We generated 500 simulated conversations and evaluated profile fidelity through human annotation and a large language model (LLM) judge, then assessed downstream effects on the AI Decision Aid's concept retrieval and antidepressant recommendations. Results: The patient simulator expressed medical concepts with high fidelity (96.6% accurate across 8,210 concepts), with human inter-annotator agreement of 0.73$\kappa$ and LLM-judge agreement against human annotators of 0.78$\kappa$, both indicating substantial agreement. Behavioral profiles were reliably distinguished (0.93$\kappa$, near perfect agreement), and linguistic profiles showed substantial agreement at the lower bound of the substantial range (0.61$\kappa$), adequate to support profile-level analysis. The framework revealed monotonic degradation in AI Decision Aid performance across the health literacy gradient. Rank-1 concept retrieval increased from 47.6% for limited health literacy to 81.9% for proficient health literacy, with corresponding declines in antidepressant recommendation accuracy.
Abstract:Objective: This study develops and validates a patient simulation framework that aligns with the National Institute of Standards and Technology AI Risk Management Framework MAP and MEASURE functions, providing an empirical basis for identifying and characterizing performance risks in conversational clinical AI across medical, linguistic, and behavioral patient variation. We applied the framework to a conversational decision aid for antidepressant selection in major depressive disorder. Methods: The simulator integrates three profile dimensions: (1) medical profiles constructed from All of Us electronic health records using risk-ratio gating; (2) linguistic profiles modeling a health literacy gradient and condition-specific communication; and (3) behavioral profiles representing cooperative, distracted, and adversarial engagement. We generated 500 simulated conversations and evaluated profile fidelity through human annotation and a large language model (LLM) judge, then assessed downstream effects on the AI Decision Aid's concept retrieval and antidepressant recommendations. Results: The patient simulator expressed medical concepts with high fidelity (96.6% accurate across 8,210 concepts), with human inter-annotator agreement of 0.73$\kappa$ and LLM-judge agreement against human annotators of 0.78$\kappa$, both indicating substantial agreement. Behavioral profiles were reliably distinguished (0.93$\kappa$, near perfect agreement), and linguistic profiles showed substantial agreement at the lower bound of the substantial range (0.61$\kappa$), adequate to support profile-level analysis. The framework revealed monotonic degradation in AI Decision Aid performance across the health literacy gradient. Rank-1 concept retrieval increased from 47.6% for limited health literacy to 81.9% for proficient health literacy, with corresponding declines in antidepressant recommendation accuracy.
Computation and Language (cs.CL)
arXiv:2602.11391 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2602.11391v5 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2602.11391 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 333 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

Vertical Advantage: Transforming Industries with Lakebase and Agentic AI
Databricks · 27 aug. 2026
PatientAgentBench: A Benchmark Framework for Evaluating Patient-Facing Health AI Agents
arXiv · 29 iul. 2026
The J-Space Debate, Agent Swarms, and Pacing Frontier AI - Digital Minds Newsletter #4
LessWrong · 18 sept. 2026

Natera’s intelligent appointment scheduling with Amazon Bedrock AgentCore
AWS · 26 aug. 2026