Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly deployed in high-stakes domains such as clinical decision support and medical documentation. However, the robustness of these models against subtle linguistic variations, specifically stigmatizing language (SL) commonly found in human-authored clinical notes, remains critically under-explored. In this work, we investigate whether frontier LLMs inherit and propagate this human bias when processing clinical text. We systematically evaluate nine frontier LLMs across four stigmatized medical conditions, utilizing clinical vignettes injected with varying intensities and phenotypes of SL (doubt, blame, and maligning). Our results demonstrate that all evaluated models exhibit substantial bias, with clinical decision-making significantly skewed towards less aggressive patient management. Notably, we observe a high sensitivity to linguistic framing, where a single SL sentence is sufficient to alter model outputs, revealing a clear dose-response relationship. Furthermore, we evaluate standard prompt-based mitigation strategies, including Chain-of-Thought (CoT) reasoning and model self-debiasing. These approaches show limited efficacy; models struggle to explicitly identify SL while remaining implicitly influenced by it. Our findings expose a critical vulnerability in current LLMs regarding fairness and robustness in clinical NLP, underscoring the need for rigorous algorithmic guardrails to prevent the automation of health disparities.
While large language models (LLMs) are increasingly being explored for mental health applications, recent studies reveal that they can exhibit stigma toward individuals with psychological conditions. Existing evaluations of this stigma primarily rely on multiple-choice questions (MCQs), which fail to capture the biases embedded within the models' underlying logic. In this paper, we analyze the intermediate reasoning steps of LLMs to uncover hidden stigmatizing language and the internal rationales driving it. We leverage clinical expertise to categorize common patterns of stigmatizing language directed at individuals with psychological conditions and use this framework to identify and tag problematic statements in LLM reasoning. Furthermore, we rate the severity of these statements, distinguishing between overt prejudice and more subtle, less immediately harmful biases. To broaden the reasoning domain and capture a wider array of patterns, we also extend an existing mental health stigma benchmark by incorporating additional psychological conditions. Our findings demonstrate that evaluating model reasoning not only exposes substantially more stigma than traditional MCQ-based methods but also helps identify the flaws in the LLMs' logic and their understanding of mental health conditions.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly used in healthcare for tasks such as clinical question answering, diagnosis support, and report summarization. Despite their promise, these models remain highly sensitive to subtle prompt perturbations, both lexical and syntactic, posing serious risks in safety-critical clinical applications. In this study, we conduct a systematic sensitivity analysis to evaluate the robustness of both general-purpose (e.g., GPT-3.5, Llama3) and medical-specific LLMs (e.g., ClinicalBERT, BioLlama3, BioBERT) using the MedMCQA benchmark. We categorize perturbations into natural and adversarial types and examine their effect on model consistency, accuracy, and reliability in clinical reasoning tasks. Our findings reveal that medical LLMs are not intrinsically safe. Even minor variations in phrasing can alter clinical advice, and targeted adversarial prompts can provoke harmful outputs. In high-stakes settings like healthcare, such unpredictability is unacceptable-models that change diagnoses due to reworded inputs or hallucinate medications when slightly rephrased cannot be reliably trusted by clinicians. While models tend to show resilience to simple lexical substitutions or paraphrasing, they often break down under syntactic reordering or misleading contextual cues. This fragility is evident across both general-purpose and domain-specific LLMs. Notably, adversarial manipulations can lead to clinically dangerous outputs, such as recommending incorrect dosages or omitting critical findings.
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used in clinical settings, raising concerns about racial bias in both generated medical text and clinical reasoning. Existing studies have identified bias in medical LLMs, but many focus on single models and give less attention to mitigation. This study uses the EU AI Act as a governance lens to evaluate five widely used LLMs across two tasks, namely synthetic patient-case generation and differential diagnosis ranking. Using race-stratified epidemiological distributions in the United States and expert differential diagnosis lists as benchmarks, we apply structured prompt templates and a two-part evaluation design to examine implicit and explicit racial bias. All models deviated from observed racial distributions in the synthetic case generation task, with GPT-4.1 showing the smallest overall deviation. In the differential diagnosis task, DeepSeek V3 produced the strongest overall results across the reported metrics. When embedded in an agentic workflow, DeepSeek V3 showed an improvement of 0.0348 in mean p-value, 0.1166 in median p-value, and 0.0949 in mean difference relative to the standalone model, although improvement was not uniform across every metric. These findings support multi-metric bias evaluation for AI systems used in medical settings and suggest that retrieval-based agentic workflows may reduce some forms of explicit bias in benchmarked diagnostic tasks. Detailed prompt templates, experimental datasets, and code pipelines are available on our GitHub.