arXiv preprint ·
Medical Fine-Tuning Reshapes, Not Reduces, Patient-Facing AI Risk: A Rubric-Based, LLM-Judge Evaluation Framework
- Published
- Source
- arXiv preprint, posted before peer review
- Original
- Read it at arXiv
- Topics
Abstract
Patient-facing medical question answering with large language models (LLMs) is moving from research demonstrations to production deployments, yet evaluation remains anchored on factual correctness. Factuality is necessary but not sufficient: a response can be factually grounded and still issue a directive that, if acted on, would harm the patient. We introduce a risk-sensitive evaluation framework that scores responses by the presence and severity of six categories of risk-bearing language (treatment directives, contraindications, dosage expressions, urgency-triage cues, high-alert medication mentions, and overconfident assertions), anchored on published clinical harm taxonomies. Severity is classified by a three-judge LLM ensemble. We apply this framework to six 7-9B instruction-tuned models, three general (Mistral-7B, Phi-3.5-mini, Llama-3.1-8B) and three medically adapted (BioMistral-7B, OpenBioLLM-Llama3-8B, Med42-Llama3-8B), on 200 real patient questions from the K-QA benchmark. Two findings emerge. First, ensemble risk-bearing language is statistically independent of factual hallucination rate (pooled Spearman $ρ= -0.065$, $n = 300$, 95% CI $[-0.18, +0.05]$; distance correlation $= 0.10$, independence test $p = 0.24$). Second, medical fine-tuning does not reduce aggregate risk but reshapes it: continued-pretraining adaptations (BioMistral, OpenBioLLM) consistently suppress high-alert medication mentions while amplifying overconfident assertions, whereas clinical instruction-tuning (Med42) suppresses dosing only, without amplifying overconfidence. Per-category Krippendorff $α$ is fair to good for the four linguistically anchored categories (0.53-0.71) and low for the two clinical-judgment-dependent categories (0.19, 0.31), indicating where automatic safety evaluation is and is not yet reliable. We release the rubric, judge prompts, and evaluation code.
The authors’ abstract, as arXiv lists it. arXiv’s listings, abstracts included, are free for anyone to reuse.
Read it on ReadSearch
Each opens after you create an account, and brings you back to this paper.
More in Artificial Intelligence
What Matters for NVFP4 Training? A Comparative Study of Low-Precision Pretraining Recipes
Stable Signer V3: 4D Deformable Primitive Splatting Is All You Need for Sign Language Production
FlashMap: Flow Map Speculative Decoding
What Can't Jev Decide? Probing the Limits of One-Pass Decision Models
Defending Against Dormant Poisoning Attacks Across Language and Multimodal Agents
Get the few papers worth your time in Artificial Intelligence every morning.
ReadSearch reads the new papers in your field each day and brings you the few worth reading, each with its key finding in a sentence.