Diagnosing Hallucination Risk in AI Surgical Decision-Support: A Sequential Framework for Sequential Validation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2511.00588v1
• Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2025 15:25:55 GMT
• Title: Diagnosing Hallucination Risk in AI Surgical Decision-Support: A Sequential Framework for Sequential Validation
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) offer transformative potential for clinical decision support in spine surgery.<n>LLMs pose significant risks through hallucinations, which are factually inconsistent or contextually misaligned outputs.<n>This study introduces a clinician-centered framework to quantify hallucination risks by evaluating diagnostic precision, recommendation quality, reasoning robustness, output coherence, and knowledge alignment.
• Score: 5.469454486414467
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) offer transformative potential for clinical decision support in spine surgery but pose significant risks through hallucinations, which are factually inconsistent or contextually misaligned outputs that may compromise patient safety. This study introduces a clinician-centered framework to quantify hallucination risks by evaluating diagnostic precision, recommendation quality, reasoning robustness, output coherence, and knowledge alignment. We assessed six leading LLMs across 30 expert-validated spinal cases. DeepSeek-R1 demonstrated superior overall performance (total score: 86.03 $\pm$ 2.08), particularly in high-stakes domains such as trauma and infection. A critical finding reveals that reasoning-enhanced model variants did not uniformly outperform standard counterparts: Claude-3.7-Sonnet's extended thinking mode underperformed relative to its standard version (80.79 $\pm$ 1.83 vs. 81.56 $\pm$ 1.92), indicating extended chain-of-thought reasoning alone is insufficient for clinical reliability. Multidimensional stress-testing exposed model-specific vulnerabilities, with recommendation quality degrading by 7.4% under amplified complexity. This decline contrasted with marginal improvements in rationality (+2.0%), readability (+1.7%) and diagnosis (+4.7%), highlighting a concerning divergence between perceived coherence and actionable guidance. Our findings advocate integrating interpretability mechanisms (e.g., reasoning chain visualization) into clinical workflows and establish a safety-aware validation framework for surgical LLM deployment.

Related papers

• ResidencyRL: Reinforcement Learning in Simulated Clinical Environments [53.76751756107077]
  We present ResidencyRL, a reinforcement learning (RL) method for training clinical artificial intelligence (AI) agents through simulated multi-turn clinical encounters.<n>On heldout evaluations, the ResidencyRL agent improves diagnostic accuracy by 7.0% under adversarial conditions.<n>Blinded expert clinicians validated these gains, preferring the trained agent in 87.6% of side-by-side comparisons.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-07T17:04:41Z)
• Safety and accuracy follow different scaling laws in clinical large language models [4.212844425331427]
  RadSaFE-200 is a benchmark of 200 multiple-choice questions with clinician-defined clean evidence, conflict evidence, and option-level labels for high-risk error, unsafe answer, and evidence contradiction.<n>Clean evidence produced the strongest improvement, increasing mean accuracy from 73.5% to 94.1%, while reducing high-risk error from 12.0% to 2.6%.<n>Standard RAG and agentic RAG did not reproduce this safety profile, but high-risk error and dangerous overconfidence remained elevated.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-05T17:57:19Z)
• Towards Trustworthy Depression Estimation via Disentangled Evidential Learning [50.22167852149165]
  We propose EviDep, an evidential learning framework that jointly quantifies depression severity.<n>EviDep enforces strict information integrity to guarantee robust evidence synthesis.<n>It achieves state-of-the-art predictive accuracy and superior uncertainty calibration, delivering a robust fail-safe mechanism for trustworthy clinical screening.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-17T13:27:11Z)
• Benchmarking Multi-turn Medical Diagnosis: Hold, Lure, and Self-Correction [72.89352076103889]
  Large language models (LLMs) achieve high accuracy in medical diagnosis when all clinical information is provided in a single turn.<n>We introduce MINT, a high-fidelity, multi-turn medical diagnosis benchmark comprising 1,035 cases.<n>We uncover three persistent behavioral patterns that significantly impact diagnostic decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-06T00:23:10Z)
• Cerebra: A Multidisciplinary AI Board for Multimodal Dementia Characterization and Risk Assessment [56.62016795093786]
  Cerebra is an interactive multi-agent AI team that coordinates specialized agents for EHR, clinical notes, and medical imaging analysis.<n>It supports privacy-preserving deployment by operating on structured representations and remains robust when modalities are incomplete.<n>Cerebra significantly improved expert performance, increasing accuracy by 17.5 percentage points in prospective dementia risk estimation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-23T05:46:45Z)
• Clinician input steers frontier AI models toward both accurate and harmful decisions [10.599240857217811]
  We evaluated 21 large language models (LLMs) across 8 frontier models on differential diagnosis generation and next step recommendations.<n>Expert context significantly improved correct final diagnosis inclusion across all 21 models.<n>In GPT-4o experiments, explicit clinician uncertainty signals improved diagnostic performance after adversarial context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-14T23:47:53Z)
• Surg-R1: A Hierarchical Reasoning Foundation Model for Scalable and Interpretable Surgical Decision Support with Multi-Center Clinical Validation [51.897472694590356]
  We present Surg-R1, a surgical Vision-Language Model that addresses the gap through hierarchical reasoning trained via a four-stage pipeline.<n>Our approach introduces three key contributions: (1) a three-level reasoning hierarchy decomposing surgical interpretation into perceptual grounding, relational understanding, and contextual reasoning; and (2) the largest surgical chain-of-thought dataset with 320,000 reasoning pairs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-12T20:26:28Z)
• Suppressing Prior-Comparison Hallucinations in Radiology Report Generation via Semantically Decoupled Latent Steering [94.37535002230504]
  We develop a training-free, inference-time control framework termed Semantically Decoupled Latent Steering.<n>Our approach constructs a semantic-free intervention vector via large language model (LLM)-driven semantic decomposition.<n>We show that our approach significantly reduces the probability of historical hallucinations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T04:49:01Z)
• A Multi-Agent Framework for Medical AI: Leveraging Fine-Tuned GPT, LLaMA, and DeepSeek R1 for Evidence-Based and Bias-Aware Clinical Query Processing [0.4349324020366305]
  Large language models (LLMs) show promise for healthcare question answering, but clinical use is limited by weak verification, insufficient evidence grounding, and unreliable confidence signalling.<n>We propose a multi-agent medical QA framework that combines complementary LLMs with evidence retrieval, uncertainty estimation, and bias checks to improve answer reliability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-15T14:17:27Z)
• Overalignment in Frontier LLMs: An Empirical Study of Sycophantic Behaviour in Healthcare [1.9010852820067994]
  We propose the Adjusted Sycophancy Score, a novel metric that isolates alignment bias by accounting for model instability, or "confusability"<n>Our results suggest that benchmark performance is not a proxy for clinical reliability, and that simplified reasoning structures may offer superior robustness against expert-driven sycophancy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-26T10:21:34Z)
• MMedExpert-R1: Strengthening Multimodal Medical Reasoning via Domain-Specific Adaptation and Clinical Guideline Reinforcement [63.82954136824963]
  Medical Vision-Language Models excel at perception tasks with complex clinical reasoning required in real-world scenarios.<n>We propose a novel reasoning MedVLM that addresses these challenges through domain-specific adaptation and guideline reinforcement.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-16T02:32:07Z)
• A DeepSeek-Powered AI System for Automated Chest Radiograph Interpretation in Clinical Practice [83.11942224668127]
  Janus-Pro-CXR (1B) is a chest X-ray interpretation system based on DeepSeek Janus-Pro model.<n>Our system outperforms state-of-the-art X-ray report generation models in automated report generation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-23T13:26:13Z)
• EchoBench: Benchmarking Sycophancy in Medical Large Vision-Language Models [82.43729208063468]
  Recent benchmarks for medical Large Vision-Language Models (LVLMs) emphasize leaderboard accuracy, overlooking reliability and safety.<n>We study sycophancy -- models' tendency to uncritically echo user-provided information.<n>We introduce EchoBench, a benchmark to systematically evaluate sycophancy in medical LVLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-24T14:09:55Z)
• Medical priority fusion: achieving dual optimization of sensitivity and interpretability in nipt anomaly detection [0.0]
  Clinical machine learning faces a critical dilemma in high-stakes medical applications.<n>A paradox becomes particularly acute in non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), where missed chromosomal abnormalities carry profound clinical consequences.<n>We introduce Medical Priority Fusion (MPF), a constrained multi-objective optimization framework that resolves this fundamental trade-off.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-22T15:49:20Z)
• A Novel Evaluation Benchmark for Medical LLMs: Illuminating Safety and Effectiveness in Clinical Domains [15.73821689524201]
  Large language models (LLMs) hold promise in clinical decision support but face major challenges in safety evaluation and effectiveness validation.<n>We developed the Clinical Safety-Effectiveness Dual-Track Benchmark (CSEDB), a multidimensional framework built on clinical expert consensus.<n>Thirty-two specialist physicians developed and reviewed 2,069 open-ended Q&A items aligned with these criteria, spanning 26 clinical departments to simulate real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-31T12:10:00Z)
• Beyond Benchmarks: Dynamic, Automatic And Systematic Red-Teaming Agents For Trustworthy Medical Language Models [87.66870367661342]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used in AI applications in healthcare.<n>Red-teaming framework that continuously stress-test LLMs can reveal significant weaknesses in four safety-critical domains.<n>A suite of adversarial agents is applied to autonomously mutate test cases, identify/evolve unsafe-triggering strategies, and evaluate responses.<n>Our framework delivers an evolvable, scalable, and reliable safeguard for the next generation of medical AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-30T08:44:22Z)
• Medical Reasoning in LLMs: An In-Depth Analysis of DeepSeek R1 [0.0]
  This study assesses DeepSeek R1's medical reasoning against expert patterns using 100 MedQA clinical cases.<n>The model achieved 93% diagnostic accuracy, demonstrating systematic clinical judgment through differential diagnosis, guideline-based treatment selection, and integration of patient-specific factors.<n>Error analysis of seven incorrect cases revealed persistent limitations: anchoring bias, challenges reconciling conflicting data, insufficient exploration of alternatives, overthinking, knowledge gaps, and premature prioritization of definitive treatment over intermediate care.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-27T09:18:08Z)
• Benchmarking Chinese Medical LLMs: A Medbench-based Analysis of Performance Gaps and Hierarchical Optimization Strategies [11.0505830548286]
  This study introduces a granular error taxonomy through systematic analysis of top 10 models on MedBench.<n> Evaluation of 10 leading models reveals vulnerabilities, despite achieving 0.86 accuracy in medical knowledge recall.<n>Our analysis uncovers systemic weaknesses in knowledge boundary enforcement and multi-step reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-10T13:28:25Z)
• Quantifying the Reasoning Abilities of LLMs on Real-world Clinical Cases [48.87360916431396]
  We introduce MedR-Bench, a benchmarking dataset of 1,453 structured patient cases, annotated with reasoning references.<n>We propose a framework encompassing three critical examination recommendation, diagnostic decision-making, and treatment planning, simulating the entire patient care journey.<n>Using this benchmark, we evaluate five state-of-the-art reasoning LLMs, including DeepSeek-R1, OpenAI-o3-mini, and Gemini-2.0-Flash Thinking, etc.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-06T18:35:39Z)
• SemioLLM: Evaluating Large Language Models for Diagnostic Reasoning from Unstructured Clinical Narratives in Epilepsy [45.2233252981348]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have been shown to encode clinical knowledge.<n>We present SemioLLM, an evaluation framework that benchmarks 6 state-of-the-art models.<n>We show that most LLMs are able to accurately and confidently generate probabilistic predictions of seizure onset zones in the brain.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-03T11:02:12Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical Image Segmentation by Modeling Evidential Calibrated Uncertainty [57.023423137202485]
  Concerns regarding the reliability of medical image segmentation persist among clinicians.<n>We introduce DEviS, an easily implementable foundational model that seamlessly integrates into various medical image segmentation networks.<n>By leveraging subjective logic theory, we explicitly model probability and uncertainty for medical image segmentation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-01-01T05:02:46Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.