August 5, 2025Open Access

Evaluating the Impact of Authoritative and Subjective Cues on Large Language Model Reliability for Clinical Inquiries: An Experimental Study

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Discussion

Experimental study reveals how subjective and authoritative cues affect LLM accuracy in clinical inquiries, suggesting critical reliability issues.

Large language models showed 100% accuracy with neutral prompts but dropped to 1% with misleading authoritative cues.
The accuracy decreased to 45% when prompted with flawed self-recalls, highlighting reliance on subjective cues.
Reliability was assessed via 250 tests across five large language models using varied prompt conditions.
Despite low accuracy in misleading scenarios, models maintained high self-rated confidence, indicating a gap in user trust.

Chang et al. (2025) studied this question.

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

August 5, 2025Open Access

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark

Authors

Experimental study reveals how subjective and authoritative cues affect LLM accuracy in clinical inquiries, suggesting critical reliability issues.

Large language models showed 100% accuracy with neutral prompts but dropped to 1% with misleading authoritative cues.
The accuracy decreased to 45% when prompted with flawed self-recalls, highlighting reliance on subjective cues.
Reliability was assessed via 250 tests across five large language models using varied prompt conditions.
Despite low accuracy in misleading scenarios, models maintained high self-rated confidence, indicating a gap in user trust.

Chang et al. (2025) studied this question.

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

View Full Paper

Ask AI

Bookmark