ArticleJournal of medical systems2026
Development of a Framework for Evaluating Large Language Model Safety and Reliability: a Proof-of-Concept Evaluation.
Article in Journal of medical systems, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are entering clinical decision support faster than methodology can characterise their safety. Aggregate accuracy treats all errors as interchangeable and cannot support safe deployment under Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and EU AI Act frameworks. To develop and demonstrate a framework for evaluating large language model safety and reliability using catastrophic-failure frequency and response reproducibility, incorporating a pre-specified error taxonomy, difficulty-stratified analysis, and two-layer response consistency. The framework was applied to 54 diagnostically challenging emergency cases from non-public institutional records. Six LLMs were accessed via application programming interfaces (APIs) (text-only, zero-shot, defaults; August-December 2025) and queried three times each, producing 972 physician-scored responses. Aggregate scores concealed heterogeneity: anchoring-bias failure (score ≤ 3) varied nearly four-fold (6.9%-26.4%) and rare-disease recognition six-fold (6.1%-37.9%); catastrophic (dangerous-recommendation, score ≤ 2) rates were two-tiered (1.5% for the safest two vs. 6.0% for the rest; p < 0.001), though within-tier ranks were inseparable (2-12 per model). Despite a middle-tier mean, GPT-5.1 was least reproducible (within-case SD 2.69) and fell within the higher catastrophic-failure tier; across models, 31 of 34 dangerous combinations were stochastic, not systematic-a failure mode hidden by aggregate metrics. Open-source DeepSeek R1 was statistically equivalent to Gemini 3 Pro within a 1.5-point margin by two one-sided tests (TOST: Δ - 0.09; 90% CI - 0.47 to 0.30; p < 0.001). In this single-centre proof-of-concept, aggregate accuracy was insufficient for safety characterisation: models with indistinguishable mean accuracy carried different catastrophic-failure tiers and reproducibility profiles. Error-type and response-consistency profiling may inform model selection, ensemble design, and conformity assessment.
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.