Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42745101›Full record

ArticleAnnals of biomedical engineering2026

Prompt Injection in Clinical Artificial Intelligence Systems: The Emerging Security Challenge of Large Language Models and Agentic AI.

Ethan Waisberg, Joseph W Guarnieri

Abstract readLetter
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of biomedical engineering, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Ethan WaisbergDepartment of Medical Genetics, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK. ew690@cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-8999-0212
Joseph W GuarnieriBlue Marble Space Institute of Science, Seattle, WA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical discussion of artificial intelligence safety has concentrated on accuracy, bias, and hallucination, each of which describes a model failing at its assigned task. Prompt injection describes the opposite condition: a model performing exactly as instructed, by an instruction the clinician neither wrote nor can see. The vulnerability arises from a fundamental property of current language-model architectures, which receive an undifferentiated stream of tokens and possess no mechanism for distinguishing content that carries authority from content that does not. Medicine is particularly exposed, because the clinical record is assembled from material originating outside the institution, including referral correspondence, patient-entered messages, external reports, scanned documents, and imaging acquired elsewhere. We argue that prompt injection warrants classification as a patient safety hazard with an articulated threat model rather than as a technical curiosity, that improved prompting and input filtering do not address it, and that the workable response lies in provenance-aware context handling, restricted privileges for irreversible actions, and adversarial testing before deployment.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligencePatient SafetyGenerative Artificial IntelligenceHumansLarge Language ModelsAI governanceAI safetyAI securityGenerative AIHuman-in-the-loopLLMTrustworthy AI

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.