analiza aiqbench
This study critically evaluates clinical trial simulators, revealing that frontier language models often rely on knowing the specific drug intervention rather than understanding its physiological effects, which undermines their validity for counterfactual reasoning. The findings suggest that current AI agents in healthcare may be memorizing trial outcomes based on metadata cues instead of learning causal mechanisms, a crucial distinction for reliable medical simulation.
Does Your Trial Simulator Know What the Drug Does? An Intervention-Blind Test of Interventional Validity on 7,207 Registered Trials
arXiv:2611.05907v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Patient world models are increasingly proposed as simulators of clinical trials, and recent surveys rank their capabilities on a ladder from temporal prediction to counterfactual rollouts. Position on that ladder is currently assigned by reading papers rather than by measurement. We turn the counterfactual rung into a measured quantity. From 30,119 completed phase 2/3 trials with results posted to ClinicalTrials.gov we construct 9,996 audited within-trial contrasts from 7,207 trials, and we score a simulator on how much of its accuracy depends on knowing which intervention was tested. The instrument is an intervention-blind reference: the same model, trained on the same trials, with every intervention-identifying field withheld. Interventional skill is the error the full model removes relative to that reference. On a temporal split (878 test contrasts from 655 trials) a registry-trained gradient-boosting simulator removes a fifth of the error of a trivial baseline, but its interventional skill is -0.12 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.05): withholding the intervention makes it better, and no alternative featurisation, stratum, temporal cut or same-molecule retrieval yields an interval above zero. A frontier language model reading only the registered protocol has interventional skill 0.20 [0.08, 0.31]; smaller and open-weight models sit at the limit of detection. Perturbation tests show the large model uses the intervention as such: swapping the arms reverses the sign of its prediction in 86% of contrasts. The blind reference is itself not drug-blind (a language model recovers the withheld drug class 45% of the time from the blind prompt), so interventional skill is a conservative lower bound. A reliability layer shows that ranking by predicted error lowers it but that calibrated error control does not transfer under temporal shift. Benchmark, code, prompts and per-call model outputs are released.
Title:Does Your Trial Simulator Know What the Drug Does? An Intervention-Blind Test of Interventional Validity on 7,207 Registered Trials
Abstract:Patient world models are increasingly proposed as simulators of clinical trials, and recent surveys rank their capabilities on a ladder from temporal prediction to counterfactual rollouts. Position on that ladder is currently assigned by reading papers rather than by measurement. We turn the counterfactual rung into a measured quantity. From 30,119 completed phase 2/3 trials with results posted to this http URL we construct 9,996 audited within-trial contrasts from 7,207 trials, and we score a simulator on how much of its accuracy depends on knowing which intervention was tested. The instrument is an intervention-blind reference: the same model, trained on the same trials, with every intervention-identifying field withheld. Interventional skill is the error the full model removes relative to that reference. On a temporal split (878 test contrasts from 655 trials) a registry-trained gradient-boosting simulator removes a fifth of the error of a trivial baseline, but its interventional skill is -0.12 (95% CI -0.21 to -0.05): withholding the intervention makes it better, and no alternative featurisation, stratum, temporal cut or same-molecule retrieval yields an interval above zero. A frontier language model reading only the registered protocol has interventional skill 0.20 [0.08, 0.31]; smaller and open-weight models sit at the limit of detection. Perturbation tests show the large model uses the intervention as such: swapping the arms reverses the sign of its prediction in 86% of contrasts. The blind reference is itself not drug-blind (a language model recovers the withheld drug class 45% of the time from the blind prompt), so interventional skill is a conservative lower bound. A reliability layer shows that ranking by predicted error lowers it but that calibrated error control does not transfer under temporal shift. Benchmark, code, prompts and per-call model outputs are released.
Oral presentation at the NeurIPS 2026 Workshop on World Models for High-Stakes Health. 31 pages, 5 figures. Code and data: this https URL
Applications (stat.AP); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2611.05907 [stat.AP]
(or arXiv:2611.05907v1 [stat.AP] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2611.05907 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.
Text integral sub licența deschisă a publicației · 429 cuvinte