mlsanityData to 7 Oct 2026

Assessing the Human-Likeness of LLM-Driven Digital Twins in Simulating Health Care System Trust

arXiv 2512.08939 ↗First posted 27 Oct 2025cs.HC cs.AI cs.CYcited by 0

Not on the map. Why?

Abstract (arXiv)

Serving as an emerging and powerful tool, Large Language Model (LLM)-driven Human Digital Twins are showing great potential in healthcare system research. However, its actual simulation ability for complex human psychological traits, such as distrust in the healthcare system, remains unclear. This research gap particularly impacts health professionals' trust and usage of LLM-based Artificial Intelligence (AI) systems in assisting their routine work. In this study, based on the Twin-2K-500 dataset, we systematically evaluated the simulation results of the LLM-driven human digital twin using the Health Care System Distrust Scale (HCSDS) with an established human-subject sample, analyzing item-level distributions, summary statistics, and demographic subgroup patterns. Results showed that the simulated responses by the digital twin were significantly more centralized with lower variance and had fewer selections of extreme options (all p<0.001). While the digital twin broadly reproduces human results in major demographic patterns, such as age and gender, it exhibits relatively low sensitivity in capturing minor differences in education levels. The LLM-based digital twin simulation has the potential to simulate population trends, but it also presents challenges in making detailed, specific distinctions in subgroups of human beings. This study suggests that the current LLM-driven Digital Twins have limitations in modeling complex human attitudes, which require careful calibration and validation before applying them in inferential analyses or policy simulations in health systems engineering. Future studies are necessary to examine the emotional reasoning mechanism of LLMs before their use, particularly for studies that involve simulations sensitive to social topics, such as human-automation trust.

Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 6 of its 19 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 27 Oct 2025.

Builds on

6 of 19 references.

References · 6

  1. 2022Training language models to follow instructions with human feedbackcited by 15,712
  2. 2017On Calibration of Modern Neural Networkscited by 4,860
  3. 2021Ethical and social risks of harm from Language Modelscited by 957
  4. 2023Whose Opinions Do Language Models Reflect?cited by 759
  5. 2021How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Modelscited by 193
  6. 2025Twin-2K-500: A dataset for building digital twins of over 2,000 people based on their answers to over 500 questionscited by 17

Built on by

Not cited yet.

Similar, not cited

Close in wording, no citation either way

  1. 2025Evaluating the Bias in LLMs for Surveying Opinion and Decision Making in Healthcare
  2. 2025A closer look at how large language models trust humans: patterns and biases
  3. 2025Aligning Large Language Models with Healthcare Stakeholders: A Pathway to Trustworthy AI Integration
  4. 2026Elder-Sim: A Psychometrically Validated Platform for Personality-Stable Elderly Digital Twins
  5. 2025Humanizing LLMs: A Survey of Psychological Measurements with Tools, Datasets, and Human-Agent Applications
  6. 2026"Do I Trust the AI?" Towards Trustworthy AI-Assisted Diagnosis: Understanding User Perception in LLM-Supported Reasoning
  7. 2024Bias patterns in the application of LLMs for clinical decision support: A comprehensive study
  8. 2026Evaluating LLM Alignment With Human Trust Models