Enhancing Guardrails for Safe and Secure Healthcare AI
read the original abstract
Generative AI holds immense promise in addressing global healthcare access challenges, with numerous innovative applications now ready for use across various healthcare domains. However, a significant barrier to the widespread adoption of these domain-specific AI solutions is the lack of robust safety mechanisms to effectively manage issues such as hallucination, misinformation, and ensuring truthfulness. Left unchecked, these risks can compromise patient safety and erode trust in healthcare AI systems. While general-purpose frameworks like Llama Guard are useful for filtering toxicity and harmful content, they do not fully address the stringent requirements for truthfulness and safety in healthcare contexts. This paper examines the unique safety and security challenges inherent to healthcare AI, particularly the risk of hallucinations, the spread of misinformation, and the need for factual accuracy in clinical settings. I propose enhancements to existing guardrails frameworks, such as Nvidia NeMo Guardrails, to better suit healthcare-specific needs. By strengthening these safeguards, I aim to ensure the secure, reliable, and accurate use of AI in healthcare, mitigating misinformation risks and improving patient safety.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
When Medical Safety Alignment Fails: A Benchmark for Evaluating LLMs on High-Risk Medical Queries
MedHarm benchmark shows aligned LLMs and guardrails can still produce unsafe responses on high-risk medical queries, indicating medical safety requires domain-specific testing.
-
Boundary-targeted Membership Inference Attacks on Safety Classifiers
A boundary-targeted MIA on safety classifiers recovers 19% of distress-flagged conversations at 5% false-positive rate, 3.5 times higher than standard MIA baselines.
-
Boundary-targeted Membership Inference Attacks on Safety Classifiers
A boundary-targeted MIA strategy recovers 19% of distress-flagged conversations from a safety classifier at 5% false-positive rate, 3.5 times better than prior methods.
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.