Possible or Definite? A Benchmark for Evaluating Diagnostic Uncertainty Preservation in Clinical Text
Authors: Hongbo Du, Zixin Lu, Jiaming Qu
Organizations: Trine University · University of Michigan · Amazon
Abstract
Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used for clinical text tasks such as summarization and revision. While most studies evaluate the fluency and coherence of LLM-generated text, whether LLMs correctly preserve diagnostic uncertainty remains underexplored. In clinical practice, phrases such as ``possible pneumonia'' communicate the strength of available evidence and directly guide decisions about follow-up testing and treatment. Altering these uncertainty expressions can change the clinical meaning entirely. In this paper, we systematically evaluated this problem in two steps. First, we constructed a benchmark of 1,200 clinical documents with 9,184 uncertainty annotations across five levels. Second, we evaluated three LLMs on this benchmark. Our results show that (1) LLMs preserve the original uncertainty cues poorly, often less than half the time; (2) LLMs struggle with nuanced distinctions between adjacent levels. This work reveals a failure mode not captured by standard evaluation metrics and provides implications for the safe deployment of LLMs in clinical workflows.
Large Language Models (LLMs) have achieved strong performance in medical question answering and clinical reasoning tasks. However, their reliability under uncertainty remains poorly understood which raises critical concerns for deployment in high-stakes clinical settings. In such environments, incorrect predictions are inherently risky, but confident incorrect predictions can be particularly harmful as they may mislead clinical decision-making. In this paper, we conduct a systematic behavioral analysis of LLMs under clinical information uncertainty. We propose an evaluation framework based on the MedMCQA dataset consisting of two complementary uncertainty settings. First, we introduce linguistic uncertainty cues through prompt modifications to simulate ambiguous clinical contexts. Second, we construct an answer removal setting, wherein the correct option is deliberately excluded mandating the model to recognize insufficient information and abstain. We analyze both model accuracy and confidence behavior using multiple calibration metrics including calibration gap, Expected Calibration Error (ECE), and Unsafe Confident Error Rate (UCER) across 500 medical questions. Our results reveal a consistent failure mode, i.e., although accuracy degrades under increasing uncertainty, model confidence remains misaligned with accuracy. This leads to a substantial increase in unsafe confident errors, indicating that model confidence remains largely insensitive to clinically meaningful information loss. Furthermore, we observe significant variation across models in their ability to abstain when the correct answer is unavailable, with some models persistently producing high confidence hallucinated answers. These findings expose critical limitations in the epistemic reliability of current LLMs and highlight the need for uncertainty aware evaluation methods prior to their deployment in clinical workflows.
Maryam Tahermazandarani, Adnan Mahmood, Fahmida Islam +1
Medical large language model (LLM) evaluations rely on simplified, exam-style benchmarks that rarely reflect the ambiguity of real-world medical inquiries. We introduce the CLinical Evaluation of Ambiguity and Reliability (CLEAR) framework, which assesses how decision-space presentation, ambiguity, and uncertainty affect LLMs' reasoning on medical benchmarks. CLEAR systematically perturbs (1) the number of plausible answer options, (2) the presence of a ground truth or abstention option, and (3) the semantic framing of answer options. Applying CLEAR on three benchmarks evaluated across 17 LLMs reveals three notable limitations of existing evaluation methods. First, increasing the number of plausible answers degrades a model's ability to identify the correct answer and abstain against incorrect ones. Second, this lack of caution intensifies as the framing of abstention shifts from assertive rejection like "None of the Above" to uncertainty admission like "I don't know" (IDK). Notably, just including IDK in the answer space increases incorrect answer selections. Lastly, we formalize the performance gap between identifying the correct answer and abstaining from incorrect ones as the humility deficit, which worsens with model scale. Our findings reveal limitations in standard medical benchmarks and underscore that scaling alone does not resolve LLM reliability issues.
As large language models are increasingly deployed for clinical text, ensuring they can reliably signal their own uncertainty becomes critical. Most existing uncertainty quantification (UQ) methods are designed for open-domain generation and cannot localize uncertainty at the token or span level in long clinical text. We propose Reverse Probing, the first UQ framework specialized for clinical summarization, which estimates token-level uncertainty directly from pre-existing labeled summaries. Rather than sampling new outputs, Reverse Probing treats the text as a probe into the model's internal state, extracting uncertainty signals from four categories of internal activations. We evaluate on two expert-annotated clinical datasets and outperform eight adapted baselines on all metrics, achieving up to 4 times higher AUPRC while reducing inference time and computational costs. Feature analysis reveals that delta energy and neighborhood context are the most consistent predictors across all models. This study offers interpretable insights into how models internally respond to unsupported clinical content.