ArticleBMJ mental health2026
Leveraging simulation to provide a practical framework for estimating the novel scope of risk of large language models in healthcare.
Article in BMJ mental health, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLarge language models (LLMs) are rapidly entering clinical and consumer use, yet their probabilistic outputs have delivered a variety of unsafe user responses. Difficulties in quantifying and mitigating risks posed by LLMs threaten to stall regulatory evaluation and clinical deployment of LLM-based software as a medical device (LLM-SaMD). Practical approaches are needed to extend existing medical-device regulations to LLM-SaMDs.
objectiveTo demonstrate how simulation can extend existing medical-device risk management frameworks for addressing LLM-SaMD-specific risks.
methodsWe implement a simulation-based methodology for estimating LLM-SaMD risk. Fourteen open-source models were evaluated on three safety-classification tasks: suicidal-ideation, therapy-request and therapy-like interaction detection. Synthetic datasets were generated by Gemini 2.5 Pro and evaluated by psychiatrists. Model false-negative rates informed estimates of P
findingsLLM success at generating synthetic datasets varied by task, with strong performance for neutral and non-therapeutic content but frequent errors in suicidal-ideation and therapy-like interactions. Performance generally improved with model size. Estimated P
conclusionsBy linking model failure modes to structured pathways to harm, simulation can extend existing medical-device risk frameworks to help address the probabilistic and context-dependent risks of LLM-SaMDs. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Simulation-based risk estimation offers a practical way to characterise the risk landscape for specific LLM-SaMD, patient population and clinical context combinations.
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.