ReviewBDJ open2026
Evaluating the safety of large language models in healthcare and dentistry: adversarial testing approaches.
Review in BDJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe emergence of large language models (LLMs) provides new avenues for clinical support in healthcare and dentistry. However, these models often exhibit unpredictable behaviours when challenged by adversarial or misleading inputs. Recent data indicate that nearly 20% of LLM outputs contain safety risks or biases, necessitating rigorous evaluation prior to clinical use. This review examines AI red teaming, a systematic approach for identifying system vulnerabilities through simulated attacks. It details methodological approaches and outcome measures while proposing a structured framework to integrate these safety evaluations into the clinical AI lifecycle.
methodsThis review focuses on prompt-based attacks, such as prompt injection and jailbreaking, which are highly relevant in medical settings. It evaluates various testing strategies, including manual expert reviews, automated "attacker" models, and hybrid human-in-the-loop systems. A lifecycle-based framework is introduced, utilizing the collaborative "red-blue-purple" teaming model. This approach spans pre-deployment testing, live deployment monitoring, and iterative review audits to ensure that clinical guardrails remain robust against evolving adversarial tactics.
conclusionSafe implementation of LLMs in dentistry and healthcare requires continuous, iterative adversarial testing rather than static assessments. Success depends on standardized protocols, multidisciplinary collaboration between clinicians and AI researchers, and the development of domain-specific benchmarks. Bridging existing regulatory gaps through these structured frameworks is vital for ensuring LLMs are safe, reliable, and clinically fit for patient care.
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.