Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41575020›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2026

Data Poisoning Vulnerabilities Across Health Care Artificial Intelligence Architectures: Analytical Security Framework and Defense Strategies.

Farhad Abtahi, Fernando Seoane, Ivan Pau, Mario Vega-Barbas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Farhad AbtahiDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7807-8682
Fernando SeoaneDepartment of Clinical Science, Intervention and Technology, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, Stockholm, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6995-967X
Ivan PauETSIS de Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1183-4401
Mario Vega-BarbasETSIS de Telecomunicación, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Madrid, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4506-6284

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth care artificial intelligence (AI) systems are increasingly integrated into clinical workflows, yet remain vulnerable to data-poisoning attacks. A small number of manipulated training samples can compromise AI models used for diagnosis, documentation, and resource allocation. Existing privacy regulations, including the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act and the General Data Protection Regulation, may inadvertently complicate anomaly detection and cross-institutional auditing, thereby limiting visibility into adversarial activity.

objectiveThis study provides a comprehensive threat analysis of data poisoning vulnerabilities across major health care AI architectures. The goals are to (1) identify attack surfaces in clinical AI systems, (2) evaluate the feasibility and detectability of poisoning attacks analytically modeled in prior security research, and (3) propose a multilayered defense framework appropriate for health care settings.

methodsWe synthesized empirical findings from 41 key security studies published between 2019 and 2025 and integrated them into an analytical threat-modeling framework specific to health care. We constructed 8 hypothetical yet technically grounded attack scenarios across 4 categories: (1) architecture-specific attacks on convolutional neural networks, large language models, and reinforcement learning agents (scenario A); (2) infrastructure exploitation in federated learning and clinical documentation pipelines (scenario B); (3) poisoning of critical resource allocation systems (scenario C); and (4) supply chain attacks affecting commercial foundation models (scenario D). Scenarios were aligned with realistic insider-access threat models and current clinical deployment practices.

resultsMultiple empirical studies demonstrate that attackers with access to as few as 100-500 poisoned samples can compromise health care AI systems, with attack success rates typically ≥60%. Critically, attack success depends on the absolute number of poisoned samples rather than their proportion of the training corpus, a finding that fundamentally challenges assumptions that larger datasets provide inherent protection. We estimate that detection delays commonly range from 6 to 12 months and may extend to years in distributed or privacy-constrained environments. Analytical scenarios highlight that (1) routine insider access creates numerous injection points across health care data infrastructure, (2) federated learning amplifies risks by obscuring attribution, and (3) supply chain compromises can simultaneously affect dozens to hundreds of institutions. Privacy regulations further complicate cross-patient correlation and model audit processes, substantially delaying the detection of subtle poisoning campaigns.

conclusionsHealth care AI systems face significant security challenges that current regulatory frameworks and validation practices do not adequately address. We propose a multilayered defense strategy that combines ensemble disagreement monitoring, adversarial testing, privacy-preserving yet auditable mechanisms, and strengthened governance requirements. Ensuring patient safety may require a shift from opaque, high-performance models toward more interpretable and constraint-driven architectures with verifiable robustness guarantees.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceComputer SecurityDelivery of Health CareFederated LearningHumansAI governanceartificial intelligencebackdoor attacksclinical decision supportdata poisoningfederated learninghealth care securitylarge language modelsmedical imagingpatient safety

Identifiers

PMID41575020
PMCPMC12881903

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.