ArticleBMJ health & care informatics2026
Engineering framework for curiosity-driven and humble AI in clinical decision support.
Article in BMJ health & care informatics, 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.
- Caution against anthropomorphising the virtues.BMJ health & care informatics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We present BODHI (Balanced, Open-minded, Diagnostic, Humble, and Inquisitive), an engineering framework for curiosity driven and humble clinical decision support artificial intelligence (AI) systems. Despite growing capabilities, large language models (LLMs) often express inappropriate confidence, conflating statistical pattern recognition with genuine medical understanding. BODHI addresses this through a dual reflective architecture that: (1) decomposes epistemic uncertainty into task specific dimensions, and (2) constrains model responses using virtue based stance rules derived from a Virtue Activation Matrix. We validate the framework through controlled evaluation on 200 clinical vignettes from HealthBench Hard, assessing GPT-4o-mini and GPT-4.1-mini across 5 random seeds (2000 total observations). Statistical analysis included bootstrap resampling, paired t tests, and effect size computation. BODHI improved overall clinical response quality (GPT-4.1-mini: +16.6 pp, p<0.0001, Cohen's d=11.56; GPT-4o-mini: +2.2 pp, p<0.0001, Cohen's d=1.56) and achieved very large effect sizes on curiosity (context seeking rate: Cohen's d=16.38 and 19.54) and humility (hedging: d=5.80 for GPT-4.1-mini) metrics. Crucially, 97.3% of GPT-4.1-mini responses and 73.5% of GPT-4o-mini responses included appropriate clarifying questions, compared with 7.8% and 0.0% at baseline, demonstrating the framework's effectiveness in eliciting information gathering behaviour. Findings suggest LLMs can be reliably constrained to operate within epistemic boundaries when provided with structured uncertainty decomposition and virtue aligned response rules, offering a pathway towards safer clinical AI deployment.
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.