Medical Misinformation in AI-Assisted Self-Diagnosis: Development of a Method (EvalPrompt) for Analyzing Large Language Models
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Rapid integration of large language models (LLMs) in health care is sparking global discussion about their potential to revolutionize health care quality and accessibility. At a time when improving health care quality and access remains a critical concern for countries worldwide, the ability of these models to pass medical examinations is often cited as a reason to use them for medical training and diagnosis. However, the impact of their inevitable use as a self-diagnostic tool and their role in spreading healthcare misinformation has not been evaluated. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of LLMs, particularly ChatGPT, from the perspective of an individual self-diagnosing to better understand the clarity, correctness, and robustness of the models. We propose the comprehensive testing methodology evaluation of LLM prompts (EvalPrompt). This evaluation methodology uses multiple-choice medical licensing examination questions to evaluate LLM responses. We use open-ended questions to mimic real-world self-diagnosis use cases, and perform sentence dropout to mimic realistic self-diagnosis with missing information. Human evaluators then assess the responses returned by ChatGPT for both experiments for clarity, correctness, and robustness. The results highlight the modest capabilities of LLMs, as their responses are often unclear and inaccurate. As a result, medical advice by LLMs should be cautiously approached. However, evidence suggests that LLMs are steadily improving and could potentially play a role in healthcare systems in the future. To address the issue of medical misinformation, there is a pressing need for the development of a comprehensive self-diagnosis dataset. This dataset could enhance the reliability of LLMs in medical applications by featuring more realistic prompt styles with minimal information across a broader range of medical fields.
Key facts. Cited by 8 papers in the map (data through 14 Oct 2026). First posted on arXiv 10 Jul 2023.
Builds on
No reference list yet.
Built on by
Citing papers per year: 2023: 3; 2024: 2; 2025: 3.
8 papers.
- 2023Did the Neurons Read your Book? Document-level Membership Inference for Large Language Modelscited by 56
- 2024Addressing cognitive bias in medical language modelscited by 36
- 2023Language models are susceptible to incorrect patient self-diagnosis in medical applicationscited by 8
- 2024From Text to Multimodality: Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Large Language Models in Medical Practicecited by 8
- 2023Apple Vision Pro for Healthcare: "The Ultimate Display"? -- Entering the Wonderland of Precision Medicinecited by 1
- 2025A Systematic Analysis of Declining Medical Safety Messaging in Generative AI Modelscited by 1
- 2025Empathy by Design: Aligning Large Language Models for Healthcare Dialoguecited by 1
- 2025CKD-EHR:Clinical Knowledge Distillation for Electronic Health Recordscited by 0
- 2025Empathy by Design: Aligning Large Language Models for Healthcare Dialogue5 Dec 2025
- 2025A Systematic Analysis of Declining Medical Safety Messaging in Generative AI Models8 Jul 2025
- 2025CKD-EHR:Clinical Knowledge Distillation for Electronic Health Records18 Jun 2025
- 2024From Text to Multimodality: Exploring the Evolution and Impact of Large Language Models in Medical Practice14 Sep 2024
- 2024Addressing cognitive bias in medical language models12 Feb 2024
- 2023Did the Neurons Read your Book? Document-level Membership Inference for Large Language Models23 Oct 2023
- 2023Language models are susceptible to incorrect patient self-diagnosis in medical applications17 Sep 2023
- 2023Apple Vision Pro for Healthcare: "The Ultimate Display"? -- Entering the Wonderland of Precision Medicine8 Aug 2023