ArticleJournal of healthcare informatics research2026
Susceptibility of Large Language Models to User-Driven Factors in Medical Queries.
Article in Journal of healthcare informatics research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Model and Task-Aware Test-Time Scaling Strategies for Large Language and Vision-Language Models in Medicine: Evaluation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Assessing Quality, Readability, and Transparency of Online and AI-Generated Information on Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Cross-Sectional Exploratory Study.JMIR diabetes · 2026Article
- Clinical Plausibility in Large Language Model Robustness Testing for Medicine: A Scoping Review.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Development and Evaluation of a Hallucination Awareness Scale for Healthcare Professionals and its impact on diagnostic confidence.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence in lung cancer care: current applications, challenges, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare; however, their reliability is shaped not only by model design but also by how queries are phrased and how complete the information is. This study assesses how user-driven factors, including misinformation framing, source authority, model personas, and omission of critical clinical details, influence the diagnostic accuracy and reliability of LLM-generated medical responses. Utilizing two public datasets (MedQA and Medbullets), we conducted two tests: (1) perturbation-evaluating LLM persona (assistant vs. expert AI), misinformation source authority (inexperienced vs. expert), and tone (assertive vs. hedged); and (2) ablation-omission of key clinical data. Proprietary LLMs (GPT-4o (OpenAI), Claude-3·5 Sonnet (Anthropic), Claude-3·5 Haiku (Anthropic), Gemini-1·5 Pro (Google), Gemini-1·5 Flash (Google)) and open-source LLMs (LLaMA-3 8B, LLaMA-3 Med42 8B, DeepSeek-R1 8B) were used for evaluation. Results show that in the perturbation test, all LLMs were susceptible to user-driven misinformation, with an assertive tone exerting the strongest overall impact, while proprietary models were more vulnerable to strong or authoritative misinformation. In the ablation test, omitting physical examination findings and laboratory results caused the largest accuracy decline. Proprietary models achieved higher baseline accuracy but demonstrated sharper performance drops under biased or incomplete input. These findings highlight that structured prompts and a complete clinical context are essential for accurate responses. Users should avoid authoritative misinformation framing and provide a complete clinical context, especially for complex and challenging queries. By clarifying the impact of user-driven biases, this study contributes insights to the safe integration of LLMs into healthcare practice. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s41666-025-00218-4.
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.