Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 cited by

Ensuring Safety and Trust: Analyzing the Risks of Large Language Models in Medicine

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

arxiv 2411.14487 v1 pith:NIIKND47 submitted 2024-11-20 cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY

Ensuring Safety and Trust: Analyzing the Risks of Large Language Models in Medicine

classification cs.CL cs.AIcs.CY
keywords llmssafetyhumanlanguagemedicalmodelsapplicationslarge
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

The remarkable capabilities of Large Language Models (LLMs) make them increasingly compelling for adoption in real-world healthcare applications. However, the risks associated with using LLMs in medical applications have not been systematically characterized. We propose using five key principles for safe and trustworthy medical AI: Truthfulness, Resilience, Fairness, Robustness, and Privacy, 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, particularly when compared to the high performance of human physicians. Despite recent reports indicate that advanced LLMs like ChatGPT can match or even exceed human performance in various medical tasks, this study underscores a significant safety gap, highlighting the crucial need for human oversight and the implementation of AI safety guardrails.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Aligning Clinical Needs and AI Capabilities: A Survey on LLMs for Medical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0

    A dual clinical-computational taxonomy for medical LLM reasoning plus a five-level 5k-sample benchmark showing specialists excel at diagnosis and general models at decision support/dialogue.