Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 23 references

A Systematic Analysis of Declining Medical Safety Messaging in Generative AI Models

T0 review · 5 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Medical disclaimers in AI health outputs nearly vanished between 2022 and 2025.

desk verdict Useful first longitudinal measurement of medical disclaimers, but the narrow definition of a disclaimer may turn a phrasing shift into an apparent safety decline. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.08030 v1 pith:TB2CCVN6 submitted 2025-07-08 cs.CL cs.CEcs.HC

Sonali Sharma , Ahmed M. Alaa , Roxana Daneshjou This is my paper
classification cs.CLcs.CEcs.HC
keywords medicaldisclaimerslargelanguagemodelsvision-languagegenerativeAIsafetyPRISM-Qpatientquestionsimageinterpretationdisclaimerdetection
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that the safety messaging built into generative AI has quietly eroded. When public large language models answer patient-style medical questions and vision-language models interpret mammograms, chest X-rays, and dermatology images, the share of outputs carrying an explicit "I am not a medical professional" disclaimer fell from 26.3% in 2022 to 0.97% in 2025 for text, and from 19.6% in 2023 to 1.05% in 2025 for images. The authors built a new question set, PRISM-Q, of 500 real-world-style patient queries in five clinical domains, paired them with 1,500 public medical images, and queried a large roster of model versions three times per item through their APIs, screening outputs with a strict operational definition of a disclaimer. The result matters because patients increasingly treat these outputs as second opinions, and the paper's data show the cautionary note is disappearing precisely as the models become more fluent and more accurate. The authors conclude that medical disclaimers should be mandatory and context-adaptive rather than optional.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing instrument is an operational definition and a measurement protocol. A medical disclaimer is counted only when the output explicitly states that the model is not a licensed medical professional and that the response is not a substitute for professional medical advice; generic "consult your physician" phrasing does not qualify. To turn that definition into a comparable time series, the authors assembled PRISM-Q, 500 patient-style questions spanning five clinical domains, plus 500 mammograms, 500 chest X-rays, and 500 dermatology images, submitted every item three times to each model through its API at default temperature, and screened the responses with regular-expression phrase matching supplemented by manual review. The yearly disclaimer rate is then tracked across model generations, with linear regression on year, chi-square comparisons across model families and question categories, and a Wilcoxon signed-rank test for high-risk versus low-risk images.

What would settle it

Re-run the same PRISM-Q questions and the same image prompts on a fixed cohort of models that spans the study window—for instance GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5 Pro, and Claude 3.5 Sonnet—at two dates such as early 2024 and late 2025, holding prompts and temperature identical. If each model's disclaimer rate stays flat while the yearly average falls, the decline is an artifact of newer models replacing older cautious ones; if each model's rate also falls, the paper's claim of eroding safety messaging is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Across both tasks and nearly every model family, the paper finds a steep, statistically significant decline in medical disclaimer presence: LLM answers to medical questions dropped from 26.3% (2022) to 0.97% (2025), and VLM image interpretations dropped from 19.6% (2023) to 1.05% (2025). The decline also appears within a single model line, with GPT-4o's image disclaimers falling from 11.7% in May 2024 to 0% by November 2024. Combining all image modalities, the paper reports a significant negative correlation between diagnostic accuracy and disclaimer presence ($r = -0.64$, $p = .010$), strongest for mammography ($r = -0.70$, $p = .004$), so the models most likely to be clinically right are the least likely to say they could be wrong. By 2025, GPT-4.5 and Grok 3 produced no disclaimers at all on the tested tasks, while Gemini 2.0 Flash remained an exception with elevated rates, and disclaimers were significantly more common for high-risk images such as BI-RADS 4/5 mammograms than for low-risk ones.

Load-bearing premise

The yearly disclaimer rate is treated as a comparable time series even though the set of models differs every year—2022 contains only GPT-3.5 Turbo, while 2025 includes GPT-4.5, Grok 3, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet—so a change in the model mix, rather than a within-model policy shift, could account for part of the headline decline.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • By 2025, most frontier models effectively never tell users that their medical output is unvetted: GPT-4.5 and Grok 3 produced 0% disclaimers on every tested task.
  • Safety messaging is weakest where wrong answers are most dangerous: medication safety and drug interactions drew disclaimers in only 2.5% of LLM responses, the lowest of all five question categories.
  • Because disclaimer presence correlates negatively with diagnostic accuracy on images, continued accuracy gains will not restore cautionary messaging on their own; the default trajectory is silent, confident medical output.
  • Models already scale disclaimers with perceived risk—BI-RADS 5 mammograms drew far more disclaimers than BI-RADS 1—so context-adaptive disclaimers are technically feasible and could be enforced as a safety requirement.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Editorial inference: because the yearly averages mix a changing roster of models—GPT-3.5 Turbo is the only 2022 LLM, while 2025 adds GPT-4.5, Grok 3, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet—part of the headline drop may be model turnover rather than a within-model policy change.
  • Editorial inference: the reported negative correlation between accuracy and disclaimers is probably entangled with release year, since newer models are both more accurate and less disclaimer-prone; matching models by release cohort or following a single model over time would separate the two explanations.
  • Editorial inference: a direct behavioral experiment—showing the same medical answers to lay users with and without disclaimers and measuring trust, treatment delay, or information-seeking—would turn the paper's safety concern into a measurable harm estimate.
  • Editorial inference: the BI-RADS scaling the authors observe suggests a concrete deployment fix: attach a small risk classifier to outputs and force disclaimers on high-risk medication, emergency, and malignancy categories; models already behave this way, so the policy lever is feasible.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript reports an observational measurement of the prevalence of medical disclaimers in outputs of commercial large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs) across model generations labeled 2022–2025. Using 500 medical questions (PRISM-Q) and 500 images each from mammography, chest X-ray, and dermatology, the authors report that disclaimer presence declined from 26.3% (2022) to 0.97% (2025) for LLMs and from 19.6% (2023) to 1.05% (2025) for VLMs. They also report a negative correlation between VLM diagnostic accuracy and disclaimer presence (r = -0.64, p = .010), and higher disclaimer rates for high-risk than low-risk images (Wilcoxon W = 13.0, p = .023). The paper recommends mandatory, context-adaptive medical disclaimers in all medically related model outputs.

Significance. If the reported decline reflects a real change in how models communicate risk, this paper documents a timely patient-safety issue with a large multimodal evaluation and a new publicly released question set (PRISM-Q). The study's strengths include its scale (2,000 test inputs), triplicate sampling, and some within-family evidence, especially the GPT-4o trajectory in mammography declining from 11.7% (May 2024) to 0% (November 2024). However, the central claim rests on a narrow operational definition of disclaimers and on yearly aggregates over non-overlapping model sets, so the finding as stated is not yet fully established. The manuscript needs robustness analyses rather than a simple rewrite, and the current version overstates the strength of the evidence.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section II-D and Section III-A] The exclusion of referral phrases such as "I suggest you consult your physician or a medical/healthcare provider" from the outcome definition makes the headline decline sensitive to a wording shift. If newer models increasingly replaced self-referential disclaimers ("I am an AI") with clinical referrals, the measured drop from 26.3% to 0.97% could be a coding artifact rather than a genuine reduction in safety messaging. Please report counts of near-miss phrases and provide an ablation that includes referral language as safety-relevant messaging.
  2. [Section III-A] The yearly regression uses only four aggregate points, and each year's average is computed over a different model set (2022 contains only GPT-3.5 Turbo; 2023 adds GPT-4 and Grok Beta; 2025 contains GPT-4.5, Grok 3, Gemini 2.0 Flash, and Claude 3.7 Sonnet). The reported R² = 0.944, p = 0.028 therefore does not establish a within-system temporal decline for LLMs. Please provide model-mix-controlled or within-family analyses (for example, GPT-3.5 Turbo vs GPT-4 vs GPT-4.5) or at least report each model's rate alongside the yearly averages so that the trend can be separated from the changing model cohort.
  3. [Section III-B and Section II] The negative correlation with diagnostic accuracy (r = -0.64, p = .010) is not interpretable without a definition of the accuracy variable, which is never described in the Methods. The paper also does not state the number of observations entering the correlation or whether each model contributes multiple modality-specific pairs, so the effective sample size and possible non-independence are unknown. Please specify how accuracy was measured, report n, and rerun the analysis at the model-modality level with appropriate handling of clustering.
  4. [Section II-E and Section III-A] The LLM model list includes DeepSeek V2.5, V3, and R1 (2024), but the results section never reports their disclaimer rates. Similarly, the LLM list gives years for some models (GPT-3.5 Turbo 2022, Claude 3 Opus 2024) and not others (GPT-4, GPT-4o, GPT-4.5). If these models were tested, their results should appear; if not, they should be removed from the Methods. Otherwise the yearly averages and the family chi-square tests are unverifiable.
  5. [Section III-A, Section III-B, and Section IV] The chi-square tests across model families are cross-sectional family comparisons, not tests of a temporal trend. The Discussion's statement that the VLM decline was "statistically significant" is unsupported because no regression or trend test for the 2023–2025 VLM data is reported. Please add the corresponding test or soften the claim to match the reported analyses.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II-C] The phrase "the default temperature parameter to minimize stylistic variation" is imprecise because default sampling temperatures differ across model APIs; specify the actual temperature values used or state explicitly that each vendor's default was retained.
  2. [Section II-D] The paper says the standard deviation across the three runs per prompt was calculated, but these values are never reported; include them in the supplement or remove the statement.
  3. [Throughout] Figure numbering is inconsistent: the text refers to "Figure 1" through "Figure 5" while the captions use Roman numerals (Figure I through Figure V); unify the numbering system.
  4. [Section III-A] The phrase "categorized by clinical question type" in the chi-square sentence conflates a comparison across model families with a comparison across question categories; clarify which contingency table was actually tested.
  5. [Section IV] The interpretation that models "respond to perceived clinical severity" based on higher disclaimer rates for BI-RADS 4-5, pneumonia, and malignant images is speculative without controlling for image content or model explanations; this is acceptable as a hypothesis but should be flagged as such.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the study is an observational measurement whose outcome (disclaimer presence) is defined independently of any fitted constant or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper reports measured frequencies of model outputs containing explicit medical disclaimers and compares them across years and model families. The central quantities (e.g., 26.3% vs. 0.97%) come from applying a stated RegEx-plus-manual-review coding rule to model outputs; they are not derived from any fitted parameter, assumed equation, or prior result. The definition of a medical disclaimer is fixed in advance in Section II-D, and the detection procedure is transparent, so the decline is a measurement under that definition rather than an artifact of the derivation chain. The exclusion of phrases like 'I suggest you consult your physician' is a construct-validity choice that may affect how broadly 'safety messaging' is interpreted, but it does not make the reported trend equivalent to the paper's inputs by construction; the trend would be different under a broader definition, but that is a measurement-validity concern, not circularity. The paper's self-citations (e.g., reference 3 and the Stanford DDI dataset) are used as background or data sources, not as load-bearing evidence for the decline, and no uniqueness theorem or fitted 'prediction' is invoked. Finally, the negative correlation between diagnostic accuracy and disclaimer presence is computed from independently defined model accuracy on standard image benchmarks and does not presuppose the conclusion. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters or invented entities are needed for the central measurement. The main assumptions are representativeness of model selection, the operational definition of disclaimers, and the comparability of yearly averages despite changing model composition.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The models selected for each year are representative of public-facing generative AI medical assistants for that year.
    Section II-E lists models by release year, but 2022 contains only GPT-3.5 Turbo and the set changes each year; comparability of yearly averages is assumed throughout Section III.
  • domain assumption The standardized API prompts and default temperature settings capture typical patient-facing interaction behavior.
    Section II-C says prompts were standardized to simulate common patient access; the authors flag in Limitations that real-world conversations may differ.
  • domain assumption The regex-plus-manual screen correctly identifies all relevant medical disclaimers and no non-disclaimers.
    Section II-D defines the operational definition, counts 'I am an AI' variants, and explicitly excludes 'consult your physician' phrasing, so measured rates depend on this boundary.
  • standard math Repeated API calls to the same model are treated as independent observations for statistical testing.
    Chi-square and Wilcoxon tests in Section III pool three runs per prompt without modeling per-prompt correlation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Systematic Analysis of Declining Medical Safety Messaging in Generative AI Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TB2CCVN6

@misc{pith2026250708030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Systematic Analysis of Declining Medical Safety Messaging in Generative AI Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TB2CCVN6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.08030}
}
read the original abstract

Generative AI models, including large language models (LLMs) and vision-language models (VLMs), are increasingly used to interpret medical images and answer clinical questions. Their responses often include inaccuracies; therefore, safety measures like medical disclaimers are critical to remind users that AI outputs are not professionally vetted or a substitute for medical advice. This study evaluated the presence of disclaimers in LLM and VLM outputs across model generations from 2022 to 2025. Using 500 mammograms, 500 chest X-rays, 500 dermatology images, and 500 medical questions, outputs were screened for disclaimer phrases. Medical disclaimer presence in LLM and VLM outputs dropped from 26.3% in 2022 to 0.97% in 2025, and from 19.6% in 2023 to 1.05% in 2025, respectively. By 2025, the majority of models displayed no disclaimers. As public models become more capable and authoritative, disclaimers must be implemented as a safeguard adapting to the clinical context of each output.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

23 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The application of large language models in medicine: A scoping review

    Meng X, Yan X, Zhang K, et al. The application of large language models in medicine: A scoping review. iScience. 2024;27(5):109713. Published 2024 Apr 23. doi:10.1016/j.isci.2024.109713

    work page arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    The ChatGPT (Generative Artificial Intelligence) Revolution Has Made Artificial Intelligence Ap- proachable for Medical Professionals

    Mesko B. The ChatGPT (Generative Artificial Intelligence) Revolution Has Made Artificial Intelligence Ap- proachable for Medical Professionals. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jun 22;25:e48392. doi: 10.2196/48392. PMID: 37347508; PMCID: PMC10337400

    doi:10.2196/48392 2023

  3. [3]

    Red teaming ChatGPT in medicine to yield real-world insights on model behavior

    Chang CT, Farah H, Gui H, Rezaei SJ, Bou-Khalil C, Park YJ, Swaminathan A, Omiye JA, Kolluri A, Chaurasia A, Lozano A, Heiman A, Jia AS, Kaushal A, Jia A, Iacovelli A, Yang A, Salles A, Singhal A, Narasimhan B, Belai B, Jacobson BH, Li B, Poe CH, Sanghera C, Zheng C, Messer C, Kettud DV, Pandya D, Kaur D, Hla D, Dindoust D, Moehrle D, Ross D, Chou E, Lin ...

    work page 2025

  4. [4]

    Exploring factors influencing user perspective of ChatGPT as a technology that assists in healthcare decision making: A cross sectional survey study

    Choudhury A, Elkefi S, Tounsi A. Exploring factors influencing user perspective of ChatGPT as a technology that assists in healthcare decision making: A cross sectional survey study. PLoS One. 2024;19(3):e0296151. Published 2024 Mar 8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296151

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296151 2024

  5. [5]

    Navigating the potential and pitfalls of large language models in patient-centered medication guidance and self-decision support

    Aydin S, Karabacak M, Vlachos V, Margetis K. Navigating the potential and pitfalls of large language models in patient-centered medication guidance and self-decision support. Front Med (Lausanne). 2025;12:1527864. Published 2025 Jan 23. doi:10.3389/fmed.2025.1527864

    work page arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Conversational presentation mode increases credibility judgements during information search with ChatGPT

    Anderl C, Klein SH, Sarig¨ ul B, Schneider FM, Han J, Fiedler PL, Utz S. Conversational presentation mode increases credibility judgements during information search with ChatGPT. Sci Rep. 2024 Jul 25;14(1):17127. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67829-6. PMID: 39054335; PMCID: PMC11272919

    work page doi:10.1038/s41598-024-67829-6 2024

  7. [7]

    People over trust AI-generated medical responses and view them to be as valid as doctors, despite low accuracy

    Shekar S, Pataranutaporn P, Sarabu C, Cecchi GA, Maes P. People over trust AI-generated medical responses and view them to be as valid as doctors, despite low accuracy. arXiv. Published August 2024. Accessed June 30, 2025.. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.15266

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Unregulated large language models produce medical device-like out- put

    Weissman GE, Mankowitz T, Kanter GP. Unregulated large language models produce medical device-like out- put. NPJ Digit Med. 2025 Mar 7;8(1):148. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01544-y. PMID: 40055537; PMCID: PMC11889144

    doi:10.1038/s41746-025-01544-y 2025

Show all 23 references
  1. [9]

    Current safeguards, risk mitigation, and transparency measures of large language models against the generation of health disinformation: repeated cross sectional anal- ysis

    Menz BD, Kuderer NM, Bacchi S, Modi ND, Chin-Yee B, Hu T, Rickard C, Haseloff M, Vitry A, McKinnon RA, Kichenadasse G, Rowland A, Sorich MJ, Hopkins AM. Current safeguards, risk mitigation, and transparency measures of large language models against the generation of health dis...

    2024 doi

  2. [10]

    S., Gimenez, F., Hoogi, A., Miyake, K

    Lee, R. S., Gimenez, F., Hoogi, A., Miyake, K. K., Gorovoy, M., & Rubin, D. L. (2017). A curated mammography data set for use in computer-aided detection and diagnosis research. In Scientific Data (Vol. 4, Issue 1). Springer Science and Business Media LLC. https://doi.org/10.1...

    2017 doi

  3. [11]

    Labeled optical coherence tomography (oct) and chest X-ray images for classification

    Kermany, D. Labeled optical coherence tomography (oct) and chest X-ray images for classification. howpublished mendeley data. https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/rscbjbr9sj/2 (2018)

    2018

  4. [12]

    https://aimi.stanford.edu/datasets/ddi-diverse-dermatology-images

  5. [13]

    Classification of diseases

    World Health Organization. Classification of diseases. WHO. Published 2025. Accessed June 30, 2025. https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/classification-of-diseases

    2025

  6. [14]

    Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency

    Bender E.M., Gebru T., McMillan-Major A., Shmitchell S. Proceedings of the 2021 ACM Conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency. 2021. On the dangers of stochastic parrots: can language models be too big? pp. 610–623

    2021

  7. [15]

    Large language model uncertainty proxies: discrimination and calibration for medical diagnosis and treatment

    Savage T, Wang J, Gallo R, Boukil A, Patel V, Safavi-Naini SAA, Soroush A, Chen JH. Large language model uncertainty proxies: discrimination and calibration for medical diagnosis and treatment. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2025 Jan 1;32(1):139-149. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocae254. PMID: ...

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    The need for guardrails with large language models in medical safety- critical settings: an artificial intelligence application in the pharmacovigilance ecosystem

    Hakim JB, Painter JL, Ramcharran D, et al. The need for guardrails with large language models in medical safety- critical settings: an artificial intelligence application in the pharmacovigilance ecosystem. arXiv. Published July 1, 2024. Accessed June 30, 2025. https://arxiv.o...

    2024 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Large language models encode clinical knowledge

    Singhal K, Azizi S, Tu T, Mahdavi SS, Wei J, Chung HW, Scales N, Tanwani A, Cole-Lewis H, Pfohl S, Payne P, Seneviratne M, Gamble P, Kelly C, Babiker A, Sch¨ arli N, Chowdhery A, Mansfield P, Demner-Fushman D, Ag¨ uera Y Arcas B, Webster D, Corrado GS, Matias Y, Chou K, Gottwe...

    2023 doi

  10. [18]

    Large Language Models lack essential metacognition for reliable medical reasoning

    Griot M, Hemptinne C, Vanderdonckt J, Yuksel D. Large Language Models lack essential metacognition for reliable medical reasoning. Nat Commun. 2025 Jan 14;16(1):642. doi: 10.1038/s41467-024-55628-6. PMID: 39809759; PMCID: PMC11733150

    2025 doi

  11. [19]

    Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self- Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models

    Zada T, Tam N, Barnard F, Van Sittert M, Bhat V, Rambhatla S. Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self- Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models. JMIR Form Res. 2025 Mar 10;9:e66207. doi: 10.2196/66207. PMID: 40063849; PMCID: PMC11913316

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet

    Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the internet. JAMA. 2002 Jun 5;287(21):2869-71. doi: 10.1001/jama.287.21.2869. PMID: 12038937

    2002 doi

  13. [21]

    Large Language Model (LLM)-Powered Chatbots Fail to Generate Guideline-Consistent Content on Resuscitation and May Provide Potentially Harmful Advice

    Birkun AA, Gautam A. Large Language Model (LLM)-Powered Chatbots Fail to Generate Guideline-Consistent Content on Resuscitation and May Provide Potentially Harmful Advice. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2023 Dec;38(6):757-

    2023

  14. [763]

    Epub 2023 Nov 6

    doi: 10.1017/S1049023X23006568. Epub 2023 Nov 6. PMID: 37927093. Figure III: Percent of the Presence of Medical Disclaimers in Vision-Language Models Across Medical Image Outputs (2023–2025) Figure IV: Modality-Specific Analysis of Medical Disclaimers in Vision-Language Model ...

    2023 doi

  15. [2025]

    Notably, the Google Gemini models stood out across both modalities for consistently having a medical disclaimer present, even though their presence also declined. Our findings revealed a significant negative correlation between the diagnostic accuracy of medical image inter- p...

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.