CareGuardAI: Context-Aware Multi-Agent Guardrails for Clinical Safety & Hallucination Mitigation in Patient-Facing LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2604.26959v1
• Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2026 10:54:57 GMT
• Title: CareGuardAI: Context-Aware Multi-Agent Guardrails for Clinical Safety & Hallucination Mitigation in Patient-Facing LLMs
• Abstract summary: CareGuardAI is a risk-aware safety framework for patient-facing medical question answering.<n>At inference time, CareGuardAI employs a multi-stage pipeline consisting of a controller agent, safety-constrained generation, and dual risk evaluation.<n>We evaluate CareGuardAI on PatientSafeBench, MedSafetyBench, and MedHallu, covering both safety and hallucination detection.
• Score: 5.437368195729715
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Integrating large language models (LLMs) into patient-facing healthcare systems offers significant potential to improve access to medical information. However, ensuring clinical safety and factual reliability remains a critical challenge. In practice, AI-generated responses may be conditionally correct yet medically inappropriate, as models often fail to interpret patient context and tend to produce agreeable responses rather than challenge unsafe assumptions. Unlike clinicians, who infer risk from incomplete information, LLMs frequently lack contextual awareness. Moreover, real-world patient interactions are open-ended and underspecified, unlike structured benchmark settings. We present CareGuardAI, a risk-aware safety framework for patient-facing medical question answering that addresses two key failure modes: clinical safety risk and hallucination risk. The framework introduces Clinical Safety Risk Assessment (SRA), inspired by ISO 14971, and Hallucination Risk Assessment (HRA) to evaluate medical risk and factual reliability. At inference time, CareGuardAI employs a multi-stage pipeline consisting of a controller agent, safety-constrained generation, and dual risk evaluation, followed by iterative refinement when necessary. Responses are released only when both SRA and HRA are less than or equal to 2, ensuring clinically acceptable outputs with bounded latency. We evaluate CareGuardAI on PatientSafeBench, MedSafetyBench, and MedHallu, covering both safety and hallucination detection. Across these benchmarks, the framework consistently outperforms strong baseline models, including GPT-4o-mini, demonstrating the importance of context-aware, risk-based, inference-time safety mechanisms for reliable deployment in healthcare.

Related papers

• Towards trustworthy agentic AI: a comprehensive survey of safety, robustness, privacy, and system security [57.35851886874902]
  Agentic AI systems execute complex tasks autonomously, but their multi-step trajectories introduce new failure modes that challenge trustworthiness.<n>This survey provides a focused examination of trustworthy agentic AI through two core dimensions that are critical for high-risk deployments.<n>For each dimension, we clarify key concepts, identify where risks emerge along the agent workflow, and summarize stage-targeted mitigation strategies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T10:26:37Z)
• Towards Reliable Medical LLMs: Benchmarking and Enhancing Confidence Estimation of Large Language Models in Medical Consultation [97.36081721024728]
  We propose the first benchmark for assessing confidence in multi-turn interaction during realistic medical consultations.<n>Our benchmark unifies three types of medical data for open-ended diagnostic generation.<n>We present MedConf, an evidence-grounded linguistic self-assessment framework.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-22T04:51:39Z)
• RubRIX: Rubric-Driven Risk Mitigation in Caregiver-AI Interactions [15.539654835961294]
  We introduce RubRIX, a theory-driven, clinician-validated framework for evaluating risks in AI-mediated support responses.<n>RubRIX operationalizes five empirically-derived risk dimensions: Inattention, Bias & Stigma, Information Inaccuracy, Uncritical Affirmation, and Epistemic Arrogance.<n>This work contributes to a methodological approach for developing domain-sensitive, user-centered evaluation frameworks for high-burden contexts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-19T17:10:49Z)
• Benchmarking Egocentric Clinical Intent Understanding Capability for Medical Multimodal Large Language Models [48.95516224614331]
  We introduce MedGaze-Bench, the first benchmark leveraging clinician gaze as a Cognitive Cursor to assess intent understanding across surgery, emergency simulation, and diagnostic interpretation.<n>Our benchmark addresses three fundamental challenges: visual homogeneity of anatomical structures, strict temporal-causal dependencies in clinical, and implicit adherence to safety protocols.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-01-11T02:20:40Z)
• SafeRBench: A Comprehensive Benchmark for Safety Assessment in Large Reasoning Models [60.8821834954637]
  We present SafeRBench, the first benchmark that assesses LRM safety end-to-end.<n>We pioneer the incorporation of risk categories and levels into input design.<n>We introduce a micro-thought chunking mechanism to segment long reasoning traces into semantically coherent units.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-19T06:46:33Z)
• RxSafeBench: Identifying Medication Safety Issues of Large Language Models in Simulated Consultation [19.41567007880886]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved remarkable progress in diverse healthcare tasks.<n>However, research on their medication safety remains limited due to the lack of real world datasets.<n>We propose a framework that simulates and evaluates clinical consultations to systematically assess the medication safety capabilities of LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-06T12:56:34Z)
• Between Help and Harm: An Evaluation of Mental Health Crisis Handling by LLMs [6.0460961868478975]
  We introduce a unified taxonomy of six clinically-informed mental health crisis categories.<n>We benchmark three state-of-the-art LLMs for their ability to classify crisis types and generate safe, appropriate responses.<n>We identify systemic weaknesses in handling indirect or ambiguous risk signals, a reliance on formulaic and inauthentic default replies, and frequent misalignment with user context.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-29T14:42:23Z)
• 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)
• Trustworthy Medical Question Answering: An Evaluation-Centric Survey [40.76054471378203]
  We systematically examine six key dimensions of trustworthiness in medical question-answering systems.<n>We analyze evaluation-guided techniques that drive model improvements.<n>We propose future research directions to advance the safe, reliable, and transparent deployment of LLM-powered medical QA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-06-04T07:48:10Z)
• REVAL: A Comprehension Evaluation on Reliability and Values of Large Vision-Language Models [59.445672459851274]
  REVAL is a comprehensive benchmark designed to evaluate the textbfREliability and textbfVALue of Large Vision-Language Models.<n>REVAL encompasses over 144K image-text Visual Question Answering (VQA) samples, structured into two primary sections: Reliability and Values.<n>We evaluate 26 models, including mainstream open-source LVLMs and prominent closed-source models like GPT-4o and Gemini-1.5-Pro.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-20T07:54:35Z)
• Agent-SafetyBench: Evaluating the Safety of LLM Agents [72.92604341646691]
  We introduce Agent-SafetyBench, a benchmark designed to evaluate the safety of large language models (LLMs)<n>Agent-SafetyBench encompasses 349 interaction environments and 2,000 test cases, evaluating 8 categories of safety risks and covering 10 common failure modes frequently encountered in unsafe interactions.<n>Our evaluation of 16 popular LLM agents reveals a concerning result: none of the agents achieves a safety score above 60%.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-19T02:35:15Z)

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.