analiza aiqbench
This perspective highlights a critical safety gap in using Large Language Models (LLMs) for autonomous clinical triage, noting that current models optimized for probable text generation fail under asymmetric cost scenarios where missing rare but catastrophic diagnoses is unacceptable. The core challenge identified is not medical knowledge deficiency but the inability of LLMs to actively seek unvolunteered red flags or broaden differentials when patient histories are incomplete, behaviors essential for safe decision-making in low-resource settings. Until evaluation methods shift from curated simulations to testing under uncertainty with missing information, deploying these models without a clinician in the loop remains unsafe.
Reasoning in Real World Clinical Care: Why Large Language Models Are Not Yet Safe for Autonomous Clinical Decision Support
arXiv:2607.28677v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning. These developments have accelerated the use of LLMs for symptom assessment and clinical decision support in diagnostic and treatment guidance, administrative documentation, and rules-based alert enhancement. This Perspective concerns the most consequential of these applications: the autonomous triage of self-presenting, undifferentiated patients, with little or no clinician in the loop. For that task, the evidence of safety does not yet exist. The gap is not in medical knowledge but in the fidelity of clinical evaluation: a model optimized to continue the most probable text is not optimized to act safely when the safe answer is the improbable must-not-miss diagnosis. Safe triage is not the selection of the most likely diagnosis; it is a sequential decision under asymmetric cost, in which the single catastrophic miss outweighs many false alarms, and the decisive signal may be one the patient has not volunteered - and that the model has not been trained to seek. The core deficit is therefore one of information gathering under uncertainty. Under incomplete histories, LLM systems may fail to show the behaviors safe triage requires: broadening the differential; seeking the missing red flag; lowering the threshold for escalation; deferring judgement until sufficient information is obtained; and escalating concern where high-harm diagnoses remain unexcluded. These modes of failure for LLMs can be difficult to detect considering that evaluations to date often use complete, well-curated, confidence-gated simulations. The application of LLMs under these conditions may be amplified by assistant-like behaviors and positive bias, including credulity, agreeableness, and miscalibration - when these are not constrained by clinical triage logic.
Abstract:LLM now pass medical licensing examinations and, in curated cases, can rival physicians at diagnostic reasoning. These developments have accelerated the use of LLMs for symptom assessment and clinical decision support in diagnostic and treatment guidance, administrative documentation, and rules-based alert enhancement. This Perspective concerns the most consequential of these applications: the autonomous triage of self-presenting, undifferentiated patients, with little or no clinician in the loop. For that task, the evidence of safety does not yet exist. The gap is not in medical knowledge but in the fidelity of clinical evaluation: a model optimized to continue the most probable text is not optimized to act safely when the safe answer is the improbable must-not-miss diagnosis. Safe triage is not the selection of the most likely diagnosis; it is a sequential decision under asymmetric cost, in which the single catastrophic miss outweighs many false alarms, and the decisive signal may be one the patient has not volunteered - and that the model has not been trained to seek. The core deficit is therefore one of information gathering under uncertainty. Under incomplete histories, LLM systems may fail to show the behaviors safe triage requires: broadening the differential; seeking the missing red flag; lowering the threshold for escalation; deferring judgement until sufficient information is obtained; and escalating concern where high-harm diagnoses remain unexcluded. These modes of failure for LLMs can be difficult to detect considering that evaluations to date often use complete, well-curated, confidence-gated simulations. The application of LLMs under these conditions may be amplified by assistant-like behaviors and positive bias, including credulity, agreeableness, and miscalibration - when these are not constrained by clinical triage logic.
Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
arXiv:2607.28677 [cs.AI]
(or arXiv:2607.28677v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2607.28677 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 · 365 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe
MedPAIR: Measuring Whether Physicians and AI Agree on What Matters in Medical QA
Snorkel AI Blog · 2 oct. 2026
Amazon Research Awards recipients announced
Amazon Science · 27 mai 2026
34 Amazon Research Awards Build on Trainium recipients announced
Amazon Science · 5 aug. 2026
Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026