Reliability Auditing for Downstream LLM tasks in Psychiatry: LLM-Generated Hospitalization Risk Scores

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.22063v2
• Date: Wed, 29 Apr 2026 13:18:01 GMT
• Title: Reliability Auditing for Downstream LLM tasks in Psychiatry: LLM-Generated Hospitalization Risk Scores
• Abstract summary: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in clinical reasoning and risk assessment.<n>However, their interpretive reliability in critical and indeterminate domains such as psychiatry remains unclear.<n>We propose an approach for reliability auditing downstream LLM tasks by structuring evaluation around the impact of prompt design.
• Score: 5.004814662623874
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly utilized in clinical reasoning and risk assessment. However, their interpretive reliability in critical and indeterminate domains such as psychiatry remains unclear. Prior work has identified algorithmic biases and prompt sensitivity in these systems, raising concerns about how contextual information may influence model outputs, but there remains no systematic way to assess these, especially in the psychiatric domain. We propose an approach for reliability auditing downstream LLM tasks by structuring evaluation around the impact of prompt design and the inclusion of medically insignificant inputs on predicted hospitalization risk scores, which is often the first downstream AI clinical-decision-making task. In our audit, a cohort of synthetic patient profiles (n = 50) is generated, each consisting of 15 clinically relevant features and up to 50 clinically insignificant features, across four prompt reframings (neutral, logical, human impact, clinical judgment). We audit four LLMs (Gemini 2.5 Flash, LLaMa 3.3 70b, Claude Sonnet 4.6, GPT-4o mini), and our results show that including medically insignificant variables resulted in a statistically significant increase in the absolute mean predicted hospitalization risk and output variability across all models and prompts, indicating reduced predictive stability as contextual noise increased. Clinically insignificant features had an effect on instability across many model-prompt conditions, and prompt variations independently affected the trajectory of instability in a model-dependent manner. These findings quantify how LLM-based psychiatric risk assessments are sensitive to non-clinical information, highlighting the need for systematic evaluations of attributional stability and uncertainty behavior like this before clinical deployments.

Related papers

• When Confidence Fails: Overconfidence in LLMs under Uncertainty and Missing Clinical Information [14.659028787864996]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks.<n>We conduct a behavioral analysis of LLMs under clinical information uncertainty.<n>We observe significant variation across models in their ability to abstain when the correct answer is unavailable.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-10T03:28:46Z)
• Evaluating Patient Safety Risks in Generative AI: Development and Validation of a FMECA Framework for Generated Clinical Content [0.5049603364708264]
  Failure Mode, Effects, and Criticality Analysis (FMECA) provides a proactive framework for systematic risk identification.<n>This study aimed to develop and validate a novel FMECA framework for the prospective assessment of patient safety risks in LLM-generated clinical summaries.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-23T14:44:15Z)
• CURA: Clinical Uncertainty Risk Alignment for Language Model-Based Risk Prediction [10.129412789850239]
  We propose a framework that aligns clinical LM-based risk estimates and uncertainty with both individual error likelihoods and cohort-level ambiguities.<n>Experiments on MIMIC-IV clinical risk prediction tasks show that CURA consistently improves calibration metrics without substantially compromising discrimination.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-16T05:58:37Z)
• Beyond Prompt: Fine-grained Simulation of Cognitively Impaired Standardized Patients via Stochastic Steering [58.85421622061983]
  We propose StsPatient for the fine-grained simulation of cognitively impaired patients.<n>We capture domain-specific features by extracting steering vectors from contrastive pairs of instructions and responses.<n>StsPatient significantly outperforms baselines in both clinical authenticity and severity controllability.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-14T02:37:46Z)
• Diagnostics for Individual-Level Prediction Instability in Machine Learning for Healthcare [0.0]
  We propose an evaluation framework that quantifies individual-level prediction instability by using two complementary diagnostics.<n>We apply these diagnostics to simulated data and GUSTO-I clinical dataset.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-02-27T03:42:28Z)
• Bridging the Knowledge-Action Gap by Evaluating LLMs in Dynamic Dental Clinical Scenarios [9.865786198063644]
  The transition of Large Language Models (LLMs) from passive knowledge retrievers to autonomous clinical agents demands a shift in evaluation-from static accuracy to dynamic behavioral reliability.<n>This study empirically charts the capability boundaries of dental LLMs, providing a roadmap for bridging the gap between standardized knowledge and safe, autonomous clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T11:36:39Z)
• ClinDEF: A Dynamic Evaluation Framework for Large Language Models in Clinical Reasoning [58.01333341218153]
  We propose ClinDEF, a dynamic framework for assessing clinical reasoning in LLMs through simulated diagnostic dialogues.<n>Our method generates patient cases and facilitates multi-turn interactions between an LLM-based doctor and an automated patient agent.<n>Experiments show that ClinDEF effectively exposes critical clinical reasoning gaps in state-of-the-art LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-29T12:58:58Z)
• A Real-World Evaluation of LLM Medication Safety Reviews in NHS Primary Care [5.167350493769989]
  This is the first evaluation of an LLM-based medication safety review system on real NHS primary care data.<n>We strategically sampled patients to capture a broad range of clinical complexity and medication safety risk.<n>Our primary LLM system showed strong performance in recognising when a clinical issue is present.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-12-24T11:58:49Z)
• Simulating Viva Voce Examinations to Evaluate Clinical Reasoning in Large Language Models [51.91760712805404]
  We introduce VivaBench, a benchmark for evaluating sequential clinical reasoning in large language models (LLMs)<n>Our dataset consists of 1762 physician-curated clinical vignettes structured as interactive scenarios that simulate a (oral) examination in medical training.<n>Our analysis identified several failure modes that mirror common cognitive errors in clinical practice.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-11T16:24:35Z)
• Med-CoDE: Medical Critique based Disagreement Evaluation Framework [72.42301910238861]
  The reliability and accuracy of large language models (LLMs) in medical contexts remain critical concerns.<n>Current evaluation methods often lack robustness and fail to provide a comprehensive assessment of LLM performance.<n>We propose Med-CoDE, a specifically designed evaluation framework for medical LLMs to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-21T16:51:11Z)
• 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)
• LLMs for clinical risk prediction [0.0]
  GPT-4 exhibited significant deficiencies in identifying positive cases and struggled to provide reliable probability estimates for delirium risk. Clinalytix Medical AI demonstrated superior accuracy.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-16T11:34:40Z)
• Evaluating Interventional Reasoning Capabilities of Large Language Models [58.52919374786108]
  Large language models (LLMs) are used to automate decision-making tasks.<n>In this paper, we evaluate whether LLMs can accurately update their knowledge of a data-generating process in response to an intervention.<n>We create benchmarks that span diverse causal graphs (e.g., confounding, mediation) and variable types.<n>These benchmarks allow us to isolate the ability of LLMs to accurately predict changes resulting from their ability to memorize facts or find other shortcuts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-04-08T14:15:56Z)
• Clinical Outcome Prediction from Admission Notes using Self-Supervised Knowledge Integration [55.88616573143478]
  Outcome prediction from clinical text can prevent doctors from overlooking possible risks. Diagnoses at discharge, procedures performed, in-hospital mortality and length-of-stay prediction are four common outcome prediction targets. We propose clinical outcome pre-training to integrate knowledge about patient outcomes from multiple public sources.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-08T10:26:44Z)

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.