MedPRESS: A Multi-turn Benchmark for Patient-Pressure-Induced Medical Sycophancy in LLMs

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.02520v1
• Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2026 17:17:29 GMT
• Title: MedPRESS: A Multi-turn Benchmark for Patient-Pressure-Induced Medical Sycophancy in LLMs
• Abstract summary: MedPRESS is a multi-turn benchmark for measuring patient-pressure-induced sycophancy in large language models (LLMs)<n>We evaluate 20 LLMs across general, medical-domain, lightweight, large, open-weight, and proprietary families using structured judging and safety-focused metrics.<n>Results show that models frequently shift toward unsafe agreement under repeated patient pressure.
• Score: 0.0
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for health-related advice. Existing research measures their safety with static questions rather than pressured patient-facing conversations. We introduce MedPRESS, a multi-turn benchmark for measuring patient-pressure-induced sycophancy in LLMs. MedPRESS contains 600 medically grounded five-turn dialogues across three scenario families: medication and treatment demand, personal health self-care, and symptom triage and care resistance. Each dialogue begins with a health query and escalates through personal experience, social proof, external evidence claims, and direct adversarial challenge. We evaluate 20 LLMs across general, medical-domain, lightweight, large, open-weight, and proprietary families using structured judging and safety-focused metrics. Results show that models frequently shift toward unsafe agreement under repeated patient pressure, with substantial variation across model families, model scale, and prompt type. Anti-sycophancy prompting improves robustness for several models, but does not eliminate unsafe agreement. MedPRESS highlights a critical gap in medical LLM evaluation: safe medical knowledge is not enough unless models can maintain it under conversational pressure.

Related papers

• When Medical Safety Alignment Fails: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on High-Risk Medical Queries [35.893190386172854]
  textscMedHarm is a high-risk medical safety benchmark with 1,100 medically grounded queries across 10 safety-critical categories.<n>textscMedHarm targets realistic clinical, educational, and technical prompts that require refusal, caution, or safe redirection rather than direct helpfulness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-26T14:39:18Z)
• Beyond Idealized Patients: Evaluating LLMs under Challenging Patient Behaviors in Medical Consultations [2.337503919179969]
  We study challenging patient behaviors that commonly arise in real medical consultations.<n>For each behavior, we specify concrete failure criteria that capture unsafe responses.<n>We evaluate a range of open- and closed-source LLMs on their responses to challenging patient utterances.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-31T07:42:07Z)
• MedArena: Comparing LLMs for Medicine-in-the-Wild Clinician Preferences [50.71326426975699]
  We present MedArena, an interactive evaluation platform for medical large language models (LLMs)<n>Given a clinician-provided query, MedArena presents responses from two randomly selected models and asks the user to select the preferred response.<n>Out of 1571 preferences collected across 12 LLMs up to November 1, 2025, Gemini 2.0 Flash Thinking, Gemini 2.5 Pro, and GPT-4o were the top three models by Bradley-Terry rating.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-03-13T22:30:26Z)
• 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)
• Shallow Robustness, Deep Vulnerabilities: Multi-Turn Evaluation of Medical LLMs [9.291589998223696]
  We introduce MedQA-Followup, a framework for evaluating multi-turn robustness in medical question answering.<n>Using controlled interventions on the MedQA dataset, we evaluate five state-of-the-art LLMs.<n>We find that while models perform reasonably well under shallow perturbations, they exhibit severe vulnerabilities in multi-turn settings.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T08:04:18Z)
• MedOmni-45°: A Safety-Performance Benchmark for Reasoning-Oriented LLMs in Medicine [69.08855631283829]
  We introduce Med Omni-45 Degrees, a benchmark designed to quantify safety-performance trade-offs under manipulative hint conditions.<n>It contains 1,804 reasoning-focused medical questions across six specialties and three task types, including 500 from MedMCQA.<n>Results show a consistent safety-performance trade-off, with no model surpassing the diagonal.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-08-22T08:38:16Z)
• 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)
• Structured Outputs Enable General-Purpose LLMs to be Medical Experts [50.02627258858336]
  Large language models (LLMs) often struggle with open-ended medical questions.<n>We propose a novel approach utilizing structured medical reasoning.<n>Our approach achieves the highest Factuality Score of 85.8, surpassing fine-tuned models.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-05T05:24:55Z)
• Ensuring Safety and Trust: Analyzing the Risks of Large Language Models in Medicine [41.71754418349046]
  We propose five key principles for safe and trustworthy medical AI, along with ten specific aspects. Under this comprehensive framework, we introduce a novel MedGuard benchmark with 1,000 expert-verified questions. Our evaluation of 11 commonly used LLMs shows that the current language models, regardless of their safety alignment mechanisms, generally perform poorly on most of our benchmarks. This study underscores a significant safety gap, highlighting the crucial need for human oversight and the implementation of AI safety guardrails.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-20T06:34:32Z)
• CARES: A Comprehensive Benchmark of Trustworthiness in Medical Vision Language Models [92.04812189642418]
  We introduce CARES and aim to evaluate the Trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across the medical domain. We assess the trustworthiness of Med-LVLMs across five dimensions, including trustfulness, fairness, safety, privacy, and robustness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-06-10T04:07:09Z)
• A Spectrum Evaluation Benchmark for Medical Multi-Modal Large Language Models [57.88111980149541]
  We introduce Asclepius, a novel Med-MLLM benchmark that assesses Med-MLLMs in terms of distinct medical specialties and different diagnostic capacities.<n>Grounded in 3 proposed core principles, Asclepius ensures a comprehensive evaluation by encompassing 15 medical specialties.<n>We also provide an in-depth analysis of 6 Med-MLLMs and compare them with 3 human specialists.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-17T08:04:23Z)
• Large Language Models Encode Clinical Knowledge [21.630872464930587]
  Large language models (LLMs) have demonstrated impressive capabilities in natural language understanding and generation. We propose a framework for human evaluation of model answers along multiple axes including factuality, precision, possible harm, and bias. We show that comprehension, recall of knowledge, and medical reasoning improve with model scale and instruction prompt tuning.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-12-26T14:28:24Z)

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.