Artificial Intolerance: Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation Skews Large Language Model Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2605.17228v1
• Date: Sun, 17 May 2026 02:28:25 GMT
• Title: Artificial Intolerance: Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation Skews Large Language Model Decision-Making
• Abstract summary: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation.<n>We investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text.
• Score: 13.79732306725696
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.

Related papers

• Beyond Scalar Scores: Exploring LLM-based Metrics for Clinical Significance Evaluation in Radiology Reports [49.5225801722164]
  Existing metrics obscure this requirement by reducing report quality to a medically ungrounded scalar.<n>We study this boundary using ReEvalMed benchmark as testbed and evaluate metric-level clinical significance.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-17T08:10:30Z)
• When Large Language Models Fail in Healthcare: Evaluating Sensitivity to Prompt Variations [1.0152838128195467]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization.<n>Despite their promise, these models remain highly sensitive to subtle prompt perturbations, both lexical and syntactic, posing serious risks in safety-critical clinical applications.<n>We categorize perturbations into natural and adversarial types and examine their effect on model consistency, accuracy, and reliability in clinical reasoning tasks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-06-05T13:07:11Z)
• Multi-View Synergistic Learning with Vision-Language Adaption for Low-Resource Biomedical Image Classification [59.24009931000134]
  Multi-View Synergistic Learning (MVSL) is a unified framework that addresses adaptation paradigms, representation granularity, and disease semantic relationships.<n>MVSL decouples the adaptation of visual and textual encoders to respect their distinct representational characteristics.<n>It further introduces multi-granularity contrastive learning to explicitly model both global image semantics and localized lesion-level evidence.<n>MVSL consistently outperforms state-of-the-art methods in few-shot and zero-shot classification settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-04-27T02:41:27Z)
• Clinical Cognition Alignment for Gastrointestinal Diagnosis with Multimodal LLMs [63.535652574541764]
  Multimodal Large Language Models (MLLMs) have demonstrated remarkable potential in medical image analysis.<n>Their application in gastrointestinal endoscopy is currently hindered by two critical limitations.<n>We propose a novel Clinical-Cognitive-Aligned (CogAlign) framework to address these challenges.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-21T07:47:37Z)
• 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)
• Mapping Clinical Doubt: Locating Linguistic Uncertainty in LLMs [4.360255198498071]
  This work examines input-side representational sensitivity to linguistic uncertainty in medical text.<n>We propose Model Sensitivity to Uncertainty (MSU), a layerwise probing metric that quantifies activation-level shifts induced by uncertainty cues.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-27T12:26:06Z)
• Towards Robust and Fair Next Visit Diagnosis Prediction under Noisy Clinical Notes with Large Language Models [4.56877715768796]
  We present a systematic study of state-of-the-art large language models (LLMs) under diverse text corruption scenarios.<n>We introduce a clinically grounded label-reduction scheme and a hierarchical chain-of-thought (CoT) strategy that emulates clinicians' reasoning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-11-23T10:40:36Z)
• Embeddings to Diagnosis: Latent Fragility under Agentic Perturbations in Clinical LLMs [0.0]
  We propose a geometry-aware evaluation framework, LAPD (Latent Agentic Perturbation Diagnostics), which probes the latent robustness of clinical LLMs under structured adversarial edits.<n>Within this framework, we introduce Latent Diagnosis Flip Rate (LDFR), a model-agnostic diagnostic signal that captures representational instability when embeddings cross decision boundaries in PCA-reduced latent space.<n>Our results reveal a persistent gap between surface robustness and semantic stability, underscoring the importance of geometry-aware auditing in safety-critical clinical AI.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-07-27T16:48:53Z)
• Mechanistic Understanding and Mitigation of Language Confusion in English-Centric Large Language Models [56.61984030508691]
  We present the first mechanistic interpretability study of language confusion.<n>We show that confusion points (CPs) are central to this phenomenon.<n>We show that editing a small set of critical neurons, identified via comparative analysis with a multilingual-tuned counterpart, substantially mitigates confusion.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-05-22T11:29:17Z)
• Bigger But Not Better: Small Neural Language Models Outperform Large Language Models in Detection of Thought Disorder [7.585589727435719]
  We investigate whether smaller neural language models can serve as effective alternatives for detecting positive formal thought disorder.<n>Surprisingly, our results show that smaller models are more sensitive to linguistic differences associated with formal thought disorder than their larger counterparts.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-25T22:55:58Z)
• Limitations of Large Language Models in Clinical Problem-Solving Arising from Inflexible Reasoning [3.3482359447109866]
  Large Language Models (LLMs) have attained human-level accuracy on medical question-answer (QA) benchmarks.<n>Their limitations in navigating open-ended clinical scenarios have recently been shown.<n>We present the medical abstraction and reasoning corpus (M-ARC)<n>We find that LLMs, including current state-of-the-art o1 and Gemini models, perform poorly compared to physicians on M-ARC.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-05T18:14:27Z)
• LlaMADRS: Prompting Large Language Models for Interview-Based Depression Assessment [75.44934940580112]
  This study introduces LlaMADRS, a novel framework leveraging open-source Large Language Models (LLMs) to automate depression severity assessment.<n>We employ a zero-shot prompting strategy with carefully designed cues to guide the model in interpreting and scoring transcribed clinical interviews.<n>Our approach, tested on 236 real-world interviews, demonstrates strong correlations with clinician assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-07T08:49:04Z)
• Self-Verification Improves Few-Shot Clinical Information Extraction [73.6905567014859]
  Large language models (LLMs) have shown the potential to accelerate clinical curation via few-shot in-context learning. They still struggle with issues regarding accuracy and interpretability, especially in mission-critical domains such as health. Here, we explore a general mitigation framework using self-verification, which leverages the LLM to provide provenance for its own extraction and check its own outputs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-30T22:05:11Z)

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.