ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025
New Model, Old Risks? Sociodemographic Bias and Adversarial Hallucinations Vulnerability in GPT-5.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Extending our validated benchmarking work, GPT-5 showed no improvement in sociodemographic-linked decision variation compared with GPT-4o and seemed to be worse on several endpoints. We re-tested GPT-5 with a fixed pipeline: 500 physician-validated emergency vignettes, each replayed across 32 sociodemographic labels plus an unlabeled control, answering the same four questions (triage, further testing, treatment level, and need for mental-health assessment). This design holds clinical content constant to isolate the effect of the label. GPT-5 reproduced subgroup-linked variation, with higher assigned urgency and less advanced testing for several historically marginalized and intersectional groups. Notably, several LGBTQIA+ labels were flagged for mental-health screening in 100% of cases, versus ~41-73% for comparable groups with GPT-4o. Additionally, in an adversarial re-run that inserted one fabricated medical detail into otherwise standard clinical cases, GPT-5 adopted or elaborated on the fabrication in 65% of runs (vs 53% for GPT-4o). A single mitigation prompt reduced this to 7.67%.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.