ArticleJMIR AI2026
Performance of Large Language Models Under Input Variability in Health Care Applications: Dataset Development and Experimental Evaluation.
Article in JMIR AI, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly integrated into health care, where they contribute to patient care, administrative efficiency, and clinical decision-making. Despite their growing role, the ability of LLMs to handle imperfect inputs remains underexplored. These imperfections, which are common in clinical documentation and patient-generated data, may affect model reliability. Objective: This study investigates the impact of input perturbations on LLM performance across three dimensions: (1) overall effectiveness in different health-related applications, (2) comparative effects of different types and levels of perturbations, and (3) differential impact of perturbations on health-related terms versus non-health-related terms. Methods: We systematically evaluate 3 LLMs on 3 health-related tasks using a novel dataset containing 3 types of human-like variations (redaction, homophones, and typographical errors) at different perturbation levels. Results: Contrary to expectations, LLMs demonstrate notable robustness to common variations, and in more than half of the cases (151/270, 55.92%), the performance was stable or improved. In some cases (38/270, 14.07%), variations resulted in an increased performance, especially when dealing with lower perturbation levels. Redactions, often stemming from privacy concerns or cognitive lapses, are more detrimental than other variations. Conclusions: Our findings highlight the need for health care applications powered by LLMs to be designed with input variability in mind. Robustness to noisy or imperfect inputs is essential for maintaining reliability in real-world clinical settings, where data quality can vary widely. By identifying specific vulnerabilities and strengths, this study provides actionable insights for improving model resilience and guiding the development of safer, more effective artificial intelligence tools in health care. The accompanying dataset offers a valuable resource for further research into LLM performance under diverse conditions.
Indexed as
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.