Artificial intelligence language technologies in multilingual healthcare: Grand challenges ahead

Equitable access to reliable health information is vital when integrating AI into healthcare. Yet, information quality varies across languages, raising concerns about the reliability and consistency of multilingual Large Language Models (LLMs). We systematically examine cross-lingual disparities in pre-training source and factuality alignment in LLM answers for multilingual healthcare Q&A across English, German, Turkish, Chinese (Mandarin), and Italian. We (i) constructed Multilingual Wiki Health Care (MultiWikiHealthCare), a multilingual dataset from Wikipedia; (ii) analyzed cross-lingual healthcare coverage; (iii) assessed LLM response alignment with these references; and (iv) conducted a case study on factual alignment through the use of contextual information and Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG). Our findings reveal substantial cross-lingual disparities in both Wikipedia coverage and LLM factual alignment. Across LLMs, responses align more with English Wikipedia, even when the prompts are non-English. Providing contextual excerpts from non-English Wikipedia at inference time effectively shifts factual alignment toward culturally relevant knowledge. These results highlight practical pathways for building more equitable, multilingual AI systems for healthcare.

Safety evaluation of large language models is conducted predominantly in English and predominantly on frontier systems. Neither condition describes how such models are encountered in low-resource health settings, where small quantised systems are run locally and queried in local languages. We ask whether clinical safety established in English transfers to Hausa, and whether any failure is attributable to the language, the clinical task, or the class of model that low-resource deployment admits. Matched English-Hausa question pairs were built for three conditions of high burden in northern Nigeria: malaria, sickle cell disease, and tuberculosis, probing knowledge recall, emergency triage, a leading question inviting a contraindicated action, and a traditional-remedy claim. Six models were evaluated: five locally deployable systems of 4-9 billion parameters, two medically fine-tuned, and one frontier system. All 128 responses were scored against Nigerian national treatment guidelines by two fluent Hausa speakers working independently and blind to one another. Among locally deployable models, mean clinical correctness fell from 1.57 in English to -0.03 in Hausa, on a scale where 2 denotes a correct answer and -1 an actively harmful one. The frontier model moved from 2.00 to 1.75 and produced no response judged harmful in either language. Drift was consistent across all three conditions. Inter-rater agreement was substantial for clinical correctness (kappa = 0.70); agreement on harm was initially poor (kappa = 0.22) and is examined in detail. Because a frontier model answers the same questions competently in Hausa, the deficit is a property neither of the language nor of the clinical material, but of the deployable tier.

Large language models are increasingly used in healthcare communication, yet most evaluations emphasize response quality while assuming that the user's concern has been interpreted correctly. We introduce HerHealthEval, a controlled evaluation framework for multilingual understanding of women's-health communication. For each clinical case, HerHealthEval provides matched versions in English, French, and Modern Standard Arabic using six communicative forms: canonical, clinical, layperson, indirect or hedged, emotionally concerned, and deliberately under-specified. The first five express the same underlying concern and retain the same clinical information, whereas the under-specified form intentionally omits relevant details to test whether the model recognizes that clarification is needed. We evaluate a multilingual instruction model and QLoRA-adapted variants on concern classification, risk calibration, clarification behavior, parse compliance, and cross-form consistency. Results reveal that aggregate accuracy and consistency can conceal safety-relevant failures. A multilingual adaptation model reaches 0.994 under-triage in French and Arabic under language-asymmetric risk supervision. A controlled re-adaptation using source-derived, language-invariant risk labels reduces under-triage to 0.572 and 0.558, respectively. These findings show that robust multilingual healthcare evaluation requires explicit testing of register variation, uncertainty handling, and the provenance and invariance of adaptation labels.