ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
Hard to Halt: Automation Bias in Agent-Driven Sequencing Prior Authorization Workflows.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Prior authorization (PA) for exome or genome sequencing is a time-consuming process that impedes timely rare disease diagnosis. Large language model-based browser agents offer potential for automating these workflows, but their clinical reliability remain uncharacterized. Methods: We developed a sandbox compromising a simulated ES/GS PA submission payer portal and a synthetic EHR containing 836 patient records spanning compliant profiles and deficient profiles with different types of issues. Gemini 3 Pro, Gemini 3 Flash, and Claude Opus 4.5 were evaluated on task completion rate, form completion accuracy, and appropriate withholding for deficient profiles. Results: Larger models achieved much higher task completion rates (Gemini 3 Pro 95.45%, Claude Opus 4.5 93.67%) compared to Gemini 3 Flash (56.05%), but nearly universally failed to withhold submission for deficient profiles whereas Gemini 3 Flash ironically demonstrated superior withholding performance (17.33%). In a non-agentic setting, Gemini 3 Pro correctly identified 91% of the issues in deficient profiles, indicating that withholding failure is attributable to the browser interaction rather than the model's reasoning limitations. Conclusion: Current LLM-based browser agents exhibit a systematic bias towards form submission that poses risks in PA workflows. A modular, multi-agent architecture with human supervision is necessary for a safe clinical deployment.
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.