analiza aiqbench
This study exposes a critical fragility in both general-purpose and medical-specific LLMs, demonstrating that minor syntactic reordering or adversarial prompts can drastically alter clinical advice and generate dangerous outputs. The findings indicate that domain-specific models are not intrinsically safer than general ones, challenging the reliability of current LLMs for high-stakes diagnostic tasks where consistency is paramount. For developers and clinicians, this underscores the urgent need for robustness testing against prompt variations before deploying these systems in safety-critical healthcare environments.
When Large Language Models Fail in Healthcare: Evaluating Sensitivity to Prompt Variations
arXiv:2606.07237v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization. Despite their promise, these models remain highly sensitive to subtle prompt perturbations, both lexical and syntactic, posing serious risks in safety-critical clinical applications. In this study, we conduct a systematic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of both general-purpose (e.g., GPT-3.5, Llama3) and medical-specific LLMs (e.g., ClinicalBERT, BioLlama3, BioBERT) using the MedMCQA benchmark. We categorize perturbations into natural and adversarial types and examine their effect on model consistency, accuracy, and reliability in clinical reasoning tasks. Our findings reveal that medical LLMs are not intrinsically safe. Even minor variations in phrasing can alter clinical advice, and targeted adversarial prompts can provoke harmful outputs. In high-stakes settings like healthcare, such unpredictability is unacceptable-models that change diagnoses due to reworded inputs or hallucinate medications when slightly rephrased cannot be reliably trusted by clinicians. While models tend to show resilience to simple lexical substitutions or paraphrasing, they often break down under syntactic reordering or misleading contextual cues. This fragility is evident across both general-purpose and domain-specific LLMs. Notably, adversarial manipulations can lead to clinically dangerous outputs, such as recommending incorrect dosages or omitting critical findings.
Abstract:Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization. Despite their promise, these models remain highly sensitive to subtle prompt perturbations, both lexical and syntactic, posing serious risks in safety-critical clinical applications. In this study, we conduct a systematic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of both general-purpose (e.g., GPT-3.5, Llama3) and medical-specific LLMs (e.g., ClinicalBERT, BioLlama3, BioBERT) using the MedMCQA benchmark. We categorize perturbations into natural and adversarial types and examine their effect on model consistency, accuracy, and reliability in clinical reasoning tasks. Our findings reveal that medical LLMs are not intrinsically safe. Even minor variations in phrasing can alter clinical advice, and targeted adversarial prompts can provoke harmful outputs. In high-stakes settings like healthcare, such unpredictability is unacceptable-models that change diagnoses due to reworded inputs or hallucinate medications when slightly rephrased cannot be reliably trusted by clinicians. While models tend to show resilience to simple lexical substitutions or paraphrasing, they often break down under syntactic reordering or misleading contextual cues. This fragility is evident across both general-purpose and domain-specific LLMs. Notably, adversarial manipulations can lead to clinically dangerous outputs, such as recommending incorrect dosages or omitting critical findings.
Computation and Language (cs.CL); Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI); Machine Learning (cs.LG)
arXiv:2606.07237 [cs.CL]
(or arXiv:2606.07237v1 [cs.CL] for this version)
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2606.07237 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 · 303 cuvinte
Subiecte conexe

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

Concrete Evaluations to Investigate the OpenAI Model That Hacked Hugging Face
AI Alignment Forum · 3 aug. 2026
Do AI models assist with human rights violations?
LessWrong · 29 sept. 2026

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