ArticleCureus2026
Decomposing Persona Prompts for Simulated Clinical Reasoning: A Two-by-Two Factorial In Silico Experiment of Time Pressure and Safety Prioritization.
Article in Cureus, 2026. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersona prompting is widely used to steer large language models (LLMs), but its effects on safety-critical clinical reasoning are not well characterized.
methodsWe performed a two-by-two factorial in silico experiment crossing time-pressure framing (high versus low) with optimization target (safety-first versus lean-efficiency). We used 28 Japanese-language synthetic emergency department vignettes covering chest pain, abdominal pain, headache, and dyspnea. Four trap cases contained prespecified contraindication or sequencing rules. Each persona evaluated each vignette twice, yielding 224 independent runs. Outputs followed a fixed JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) schema and were scored for the number of proposed tests, entropy of the probability distribution across the top five differential diagnoses, discharge decisions, safety-net specificity, and contraindication or sequencing violations, with severity grading.
resultsHigh time-pressure framing reduced the number of proposed tests (beta = -1.05, p < 0.001) and diagnostic breadth (beta = -0.246, p < 0.001). Safety-first prompting increased proposed testing (beta = 1.32, p < 0.001) and diagnostic breadth (beta = 0.247, p < 0.001), with no significant interaction. Among discharge plans (36 of 224 runs), safety-first prompting improved safety-net specificity (mean 4.5 versus 2.6 on a five-point scale). Contraindication or sequencing violations occurred only in the high/lean condition (eight of 56 runs, 14.3%); in trap cases, violations were eight of eight under high/lean and zero of 24 in the other three conditions.
conclusionsPersona components predictably shifted simulated clinical reasoning. Time-pressure framing narrowed diagnostic search and reduced proposed testing, whereas safety-first prompting improved safety-netting and prevented severe trap-case violations outside the high/lean condition. Prompt-aware stress testing may help identify unsafe prompt configurations before clinical 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.