ArticleCureus2026
Robustness of a Large Language Model (LLM)-Based Virtual Patient for Japanese History-Taking Training Under Direct and Indirect Instructional Contamination.
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
Large language model (LLM)-based virtual patients are increasingly used to scale history-taking practice in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education. For clinical simulation, reliability requires not only avoidance of harmful content but also role-consistent case fidelity, dialogue continuity, and adherence to constraints on what the simulated patient should disclose. We evaluated these dimensions as an operational robustness benchmark, not as evidence of deployment readiness. We systematically stress-tested a Japanese LLM-based virtual patient under six robustness conditions: clean inputs, noise, direct contamination, direct contamination with defense, indirect contamination, and indirect contamination with defense. Case fidelity was measured using the slot-level F1 score, a 0-to-1 measure combining precision and recall for expected case-history elements, excluding the opening greeting turn. Information coverage was measured using turn-target hit rate, defined as the fraction of prespecified target slots elicited at the intended interview turns. Proxy constraint-adherence outcomes included refusal, clarification, forbidden information leakage, contradiction, and role drift. Under clean inputs, case fidelity was high (0.947; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.940-0.955), and turn-target hit rate was 0.946 (95% CI, 0.932-0.959). Noise preserved overall case fidelity (0.941; 95% CI, 0.934-0.949) but reduced turn-target hit rate (0.823; 95% CI, 0.806-0.841). Direct contamination caused severe degradation in fidelity (0.098; 95% CI, 0.052-0.144) and turn-target hit rate (0.077; 95% CI, 0.034-0.119). With preprocessing defense, performance returned to near-clean levels (fidelity, 0.945; 95% CI, 0.938-0.952; hit rate, 0.942; 95% CI, 0.930-0.955). Indirect contamination showed near-clean fidelity (0.946; 95% CI, 0.938-0.954) and hit rate (0.952; 95% CI, 0.940-0.965), with minimal additional benefit from defense. Refusal and clarification rates were 0 across all conditions, and role drift events were not observed. However, forbidden information leakage occurred at approximately 0.60 events per episode under the clean condition (0.600; 95% CI, 0.502-0.698), indicating incomplete constraint adherence despite high case fidelity. In this controlled sequential virtual patient benchmark, direct prompt contamination was the dominant failure mode in terms of case fidelity and information coverage, while noise primarily reduced target-slot acquisition. A simple preprocessing defense mitigated direct-contamination effects on fidelity and information coverage, but persistent forbidden-information leakage indicates that additional safeguards and external validation are required before claims of safe clinical or educational deployment can be made.
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.