When AI Gets it Wrong: Reliability and Risk in AI-Assisted Medication Decision Systems

AI models are increasingly deployed in live clinical environments where they must perform reliably across complex, high-stakes workflows that standard training and validation datasets were never designed to capture. Evaluating these systems requires benchmarks: structured combinations of tasks, datasets, and metrics that enable reproducible, comparable measurement of what a model can do. The central challenge in healthcare AI is not performance alone, but the absence of systematic methods to measure reliability, safety, and clinical relevance under real-world conditions. Most existing benchmarks test what a model knows; too few test whether it can perform reliably and without failing across the full complexity of real clinical tasks. Current benchmarks have accumulated through ad hoc dataset construction optimized for narrow task performance: frontier models achieve near-perfect scores on medical licensing examinations, but when evaluated across real clinical tasks, performance degrades sharply, scoring 0.74--0.85 on documentation, 0.61--0.76 on clinical decision support, and only 0.53--0.63 on administrative and workflow tasks \cite{medhelm}. High benchmark scores give a false sense of deployment readiness, and the gap between performance and utility widens precisely as AI systems take on more consequential clinical roles. Without a principled framework for benchmark design, the field cannot determine whether poor clinical performance reflects model limitations or failures in how performance is being measured.

Applying a valid medication-safety rule when its patient-specific conditions are not met can produce an incorrect decision. Existing medical evaluations largely use isolated and fixed scenarios. A model may therefore answer correctly by recalling a drug-risk association without showing that it used patient information to decide whether the rule applies. To address this gap, we introduce MedPIC-Bench, a benchmark of source-verifiable recommendations and expert-validated questions for patient-specific medication-safety reasoning. It combines guideline-following questions with paired counterfactual questions in which a controlled change in patient information changes whether a rule applies. The benchmark contains 467 questions annotated along six clinical and reasoning dimensions. Across 28 medical-specific, general, and proprietary LLMs, every model performs worse on counterfactual questions, with mean accuracy falling from 63.6% to 45.1%. Models perform well when an explicit patient attribute directly signals a familiar contraindication, but struggle when patient information must narrow or withdraw a safety warning. Model rationales often acknowledge the changed patient information, yet the final answers retain the previous safety judgment. This vulnerability persists among medical-specific LLMs, whose average CF performance trails that of general LLMs. MedPIC-Bench therefore makes conditional rule application measurable and highlights the limitations of static medication-safety accuracy for assessing patient-specific reliability.

Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in healthcare settings, yet their tendency to hallucinate poses risks when clinical decisions are involved. This study examine whether LLMs recommend recently banned or withdrawn pharmaceuticals when answering clinical questions and tests an agent-based method for reducing such errors. We developed a five-agent "Trust but Verify" system using a single LLM backbone. To measure regulatory knowledge obsolescence, we created an adversarial dataset of 103 clinical MCQs where historically correct answers now refer to banned substances. This scale ensures statistical significance across various therapeutic classes. We evaluated three open-access model families (GPT-OSS, Llama-3, Falcon-3) under vanilla and agentic conditions. Performance was measured via pointwise score, label accuracy, Hallucination Error Rate (HER), and Component Fidelity (CF) score. We also observed clinical safety regression in proprietary models. In default configurations, all models showed high hallucination rates, consistently selecting banned drugs that matched training data patterns. Our proposed agentic architecture reduced HER by approximately 53% across models. Pointwise scores shifted from -0.25 (unsafe recommendation) toward 0.0 (appropriate refusal). The safety audit intercepted dangerous outputs even when models' parametric knowledge favored the banned substance. The proposed multi-agent framework offers a model-agnostic method for enforcing regulatory compliance that prioritizes patient safety over fluent text generation. Our work demonstrates a practical approach for deploying autonomous AI systems in safety-critical healthcare settings. It shows how real-time regulatory data can be integrated into LLM pipelines to support clinical decision-making.