Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 cited by

CARES: Comprehensive Evaluation of Safety and Adversarial Robustness in Medical LLMs

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2505.11413 v1 pith:QKRXK6LM submitted 2025-05-16 cs.CL

classification cs.CL
keywords safetyadversarialcaresmedicalevaluationllmspromptsassess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
read the original abstract

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in medical contexts, raising critical concerns about safety, alignment, and susceptibility to adversarial manipulation. While prior benchmarks assess model refusal capabilities for harmful prompts, they often lack clinical specificity, graded harmfulness levels, and coverage of jailbreak-style attacks. We introduce CARES (Clinical Adversarial Robustness and Evaluation of Safety), a benchmark for evaluating LLM safety in healthcare. CARES includes over 18,000 prompts spanning eight medical safety principles, four harm levels, and four prompting styles: direct, indirect, obfuscated, and role-play, to simulate both malicious and benign use cases. We propose a three-way response evaluation protocol (Accept, Caution, Refuse) and a fine-grained Safety Score metric to assess model behavior. Our analysis reveals that many state-of-the-art LLMs remain vulnerable to jailbreaks that subtly rephrase harmful prompts, while also over-refusing safe but atypically phrased queries. Finally, we propose a mitigation strategy using a lightweight classifier to detect jailbreak attempts and steer models toward safer behavior via reminder-based conditioning. CARES provides a rigorous framework for testing and improving medical LLM safety under adversarial and ambiguous conditions.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Asymmetric Collapse in Model Merging: When Refusal Over- writes Recognition

    cs.AI 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Across four standard merging methods, refusal behavior from a large task vector overwrites fine-grained harm classification, leaving at most 12.9% accuracy.

  2. Aligning Clinical Needs and AI Capabilities: A Survey on LLMs for Medical Reasoning

    cs.AI 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A dual clinical-computational taxonomy for medical LLM reasoning plus a five-level 5k-sample benchmark showing specialists excel at diagnosis and general models at decision support/dialogue.

  3. Health-ORSC-Bench: A Benchmark for Measuring Over-Refusal and Safety Completion in Health Context

    cs.AI 2026-01 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Health-ORSC-Bench measures over-refusal and safe completion in health queries across 30 LLMs, finding safety-optimised models refuse up to 80% of hard benign prompts.

  4. mFARM: Towards Multi-Faceted Fairness Assessment based on HARMs in Clinical Decision Support

    cs.AI 2025-09 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A new multi-metric fairness framework for clinical LLMs, applied to two large MIMIC-IV-based benchmarks, shows that context scarcity hurts fairness more than quantization does.

Pith tools