REVIEW 2 cited by
Red Teaming Large Language Models for Healthcare
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
We present the design process and findings of the pre-conference workshop at the Machine Learning for Healthcare Conference (2024) entitled Red Teaming Large Language Models for Healthcare, which took place on August 15, 2024. Conference participants, comprising a mix of computational and clinical expertise, attempted to discover vulnerabilities -- realistic clinical prompts for which a large language model (LLM) outputs a response that could cause clinical harm. Red-teaming with clinicians enables the identification of LLM vulnerabilities that may not be recognised by LLM developers lacking clinical expertise. We report the vulnerabilities found, categorise them, and present the results of a replication study assessing the vulnerabilities across all LLMs provided.
Forward citations
Cited by 2 Pith papers
-
Addressing Benchmarking Gaps in Large Language Models for Health and Medicine with Dynamic Red-Teaming
A dynamic red-teaming audit reports that 94% of MedQA-correct answers fail under adversarial mutation, with 86% privacy leak rates, 81% bias shift rates, and 66-74% hallucination rates across 15 medical LLMs.
-
A Multi-Domain Red Teaming Framework for Safety, Robustness, and Fairness Evaluation of Medical Large Language Models
Across 690 adversarial clinical scenarios, high mean LLM scores still hide zero-score safety failures, so variance and hybrid clinician scoring better indicate medical reliability than average accuracy.
Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.