Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41001488›Full record

ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2025

New Model, Old Risks? Sociodemographic Bias and Adversarial Hallucinations Vulnerability in GPT-5.

Mahmud Omar, Reem Agbareia, Donald U Apakama, Carol R Horowitz, Robert Freeman, Alexander W Charney, Girish N Nadkarni, Eyal Klang

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Mahmud OmarThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0009-0001-0438-0827
Reem AgbareiaThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0009-0000-8030-9232
Donald U ApakamaThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6217-1620
Carol R HorowitzThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1517-4700
Robert FreemanThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.
Alexander W CharneyThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-8135-6858
Girish N NadkarniThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6319-4314
Eyal KlangThe Windreich Department of Artificial Intelligence and Human Health, Mount Sinai Medical Center, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4567-3108

Funding

Conduits: Mount Sinai Health System Translational Science HubUL1TR004419 · NCATS · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI Rosalind J Wright · 2022 to 2026
$46.4M
COVID and Translational Science supercomputer (CATS)S10OD030463 · OD · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI KOVATCH, PATRICIA · 2021 to 2021
$2.0M
Big Omics Data Engine 2 SupercomputerS10OD026880 · OD · ICAHN SCHOOL OF MEDICINE AT MOUNT SINAI · PI KOVATCH, PATRICIA · 2019 to 2019
$2.0M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR004419NIH HHS S10 OD026880NIH HHS S10 OD030463
6 · The paper itself

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

PMID41001488
PMCPMC12458962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.