ArticleCureus2026
Safety Audit of a Large Language Model for Lay Self-Triage Using Japanese Symptom Vignettes: Persistent Red-Flag Under-Triage Despite Improved Reproducibility Under Near-Deterministic Decoding.
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
introductionLarge language models are increasingly discussed as tools for patient-facing symptom assessment, but safe self-triage depends on the concrete next action recommended to the user rather than on generic urgency language alone. We audited whether a commercially deployed general-purpose model could map Japanese symptom vignettes to clinically acceptable self-triage actions across low-risk and urgent scenarios.
methodsFrom a bank of 60 synthetic lay personas and 30 Japanese symptom vignettes, we constructed three predefined slices, each comprising 24 persona-vignette pairs: a mild slice (sev1_24), an intermediate non-red-flag slice (nonredflag24), and an urgent red-flag slice (redflag24). Outputs were restricted to a 10-category action codebook ranging from watchful waiting (A0) to ambulance activation (A9). The audited model was gpt-4o-mini accessed through the OpenAI Responses API. Narrative and structured prompts were compared under near-deterministic decoding (temperature 0.0, top_p 1.0) and stochastic decoding (temperature 1.0, top_p 0.95). A response-schema condition was also evaluated. Acceptable action ranges were defined by an explicit operational reference policy informed by Japanese emergency-care and triage literature.
resultsA total of 3,342 valid outputs were analyzed. Hard under-triage and hard over-triage were absent in the mild and non-red-flag slices across all tested conditions. In contrast, the red-flag slice showed near-universal hard under-triage of the primary action: 100.0% for both prompts under near-deterministic decoding, 100.0% for P1 and 99.7% for P2 under stochastic prompt-only decoding, and 100.0% for both prompts under stochastic response-schema decoding. Near-deterministic decoding improved run-to-run modal agreement, but this reproducibility gain did not improve urgent-case safety. Response-schema enforcement often improved agreement relative to stochastic prompt-only execution, yet in some urgent conditions, it increased the proportion of escalation recommendations that still remained below the hard minimum.
conclusionIn this safety audit, gpt-4o-mini was conservative in low-risk cases but unsafe in urgent cases because urgency was expressed mainly through timing and escalation fields rather than through an appropriately urgent primary action. Better reproducibility under near-deterministic decoding did not translate into safer self-triage. Medical audits of LLM self-triage systems should report primary-action safety, auxiliary urgency cues, decoding configuration, and schema mode separately.
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.