Rare Diseases, Common Dilemmas: LLMs Prioritize Equal Resource Distribution over Patient Benefit in Decision-Making

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2608.25236v1
• Date: Tue, 25 Aug 2026 23:54:22 GMT
• Title: Rare Diseases, Common Dilemmas: LLMs Prioritize Equal Resource Distribution over Patient Benefit in Decision-Making
• Abstract summary: Clinical decision-making often involves prioritizing ethical values, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, respecting a patient's autonomy, and justice.<n>Recent work has begun to assess how large language models (LLMs) make such subjective, value-laden clinical judgments.<n>We present a benchmark of 208 clinically grounded rare disease vignettes, each of which presents genuine, high-stakes conflicts.
• Score: 6.669841955172372
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: Clinical decision-making often involves prioritizing ethical values, such as beneficence, non-maleficence, respecting a patient's autonomy, and justice. Recent work has begun to assess how large language models (LLMs) make such subjective, value-laden clinical judgments. However, evaluations of LLM decision-making in rare disease care contexts, where ethical tensions are ubiquitous and where scarce prior information likely impacts LLM behavior, are still lacking. Here, we present a benchmark of 208 clinically grounded rare disease vignettes, each of which presents genuine, high-stakes conflicts. When prompting 11 state-of-the-art LLMs to choose between clinically defensible yet ethically conflicting next steps embedded within these vignettes, we found that all evaluated models consistently prioritized justice over other core bioethical principles. Specifically, models overwhelmingly favor equal resource allocation over need-based considerations, indicating LLMs' limited responsiveness to differences in clinical severity or situational context. We also identify a strong authority-framing effect: models favor justice in committee-based contexts and shift toward beneficence and autonomy only when final decisions are framed as being made by clinicians or patients respectively. Our work suggests that institutional pressures surrounding rare disease resource utilization may be silently reflected in LLM-based decision support systems, with finer ethical considerations disregarded.

Related papers

• The Judgment-Consequence Gap: LLM Moral Reasoning in Healthcare Decisions [20.192422641852534]
  Large language models (LLMs) enter high-stakes domains such as healthcare.<n>LLMs agree with humans that patients bear responsibility for health-harming behaviors, yet overwhelmingly refuse to let that judgment influence how they allocate scarce resources.<n>LLMs apply a systematically different moral framework than humans when responsibility and resource scarcity intersect.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-08-06T04:12:05Z)
• EHRBench: An Automated and Reliable EHR-based Benchmark for Clinical Decision Making with LLMs [51.129595320595094]
  Clinical decision-making (CDM) is central to real-world clinical, where clinicians infer diagnoses, select treatments, or anticipate future health outcomes under incomplete evidence.<n>LLM models are increasingly used to support these decisions due to strong language capabilities, broad biomedical knowledge, and efficiency.<n>The reliability of LLMs on real-world clinical decision tasks remains insufficiently understood.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-28T22:38:26Z)
• What Does the AI Doctor Value? Auditing Pluralism in the Clinical Ethics of Language Models [3.552218268811112]
  Medicine is inherently pluralistic. Principles such as autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence, and justice routinely conflict.<n>Good clinical practice navigates these tensions in concert with each patient's values rather than imposing a single ethical stance.<n>We present a framework for auditing value pluralism in medical AI, comprising a benchmark of clinician-verified dilemmas and an attribution method that recovers value priorities directly from decisions.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-18T17:56:13Z)
• Artificial Intolerance: Stigmatizing Language in Clinical Documentation Skews Large Language Model Decision-Making [13.79732306725696]
  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.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-05-17T02:28:25Z)
• 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)
• HALF: Harm-Aware LLM Fairness Evaluation Aligned with Deployment [52.374772443536045]
  HALF (Harm-Aware LLM Fairness) is a framework that assesses model bias in realistic applications and weighs the outcomes by harm severity.<n>We show that HALF exposes a clear gap between previous benchmarking success and deployment readiness.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-14T07:13:26Z)
• 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)
• Bias in Large Language Models Across Clinical Applications: A Systematic Review [0.0]
  Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into healthcare, promising to enhance various clinical tasks.<n>This systematic review investigates the prevalence, sources, manifestations, and clinical implications of bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-04-03T13:32:08Z)
• 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)
• CLIMB: A Benchmark of Clinical Bias in Large Language Models [39.82307008221118]
  Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly applied to clinical decision-making. Their potential to exhibit bias poses significant risks to clinical equity. Currently, there is a lack of benchmarks that systematically evaluate such clinical bias in LLMs.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-07T03:41:51Z)

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.